Rejected DUI Breath-Test Results
February 6th, 2008At a time when Washington State is trying to crack down on drunk drivers by passing a bill to allow sobriety checkpoints, hundreds, if not thousands, of driving under the influence cases could be affected in a ruling made last Wednesday by a panel of three King County judges.
The ruling in question was made because of problems with the state’s toxicology lab: the judges cite mistakes such as discarding data, entering incorrect data, bad software, and logs that were not properly completed. This is in addition to allegations that the lab manager, who was supposed to prepare the alcohol samples, did not.
In the judges’ 29-page ruling, they state that the Washington State Toxicology Lab had so many “ethical lapses, systemic inaccuracy, negligence and violations of scientific principles” that breath tests should be suppressed as evidence in upcoming DUI cases.
The judges further allege there is no way of knowing whether the thousands of breath tests given from 2003 to 2007 are accurate.
Some Washington defense attorneys believe this is more than making simple mistakes – they call the actions at the lab fraudulent, citing a complete disregard for accuracy.
Due to the credibility issues with the state’s lab, many prosecutors are dropping breath tests as evidence when going to trial. They must instead rely on other evidence such as blood tests or the arresting officer’s testimony on the defendant’s driving and actions.
Prosecutors in King County agree that with the 40,000 breath tests given every year in the state, there could be thousands of cases affected, but that does not necessarily mean that DUI charges will be dropped completely.
It is not known yet how many people who have been convicted of driving under the influence will be able to go back and have their cases re-opened.
This is not just a problem with Washington State. A 1995 study published by the Journal of Forensic Sciences analyzed tests that were administered by the Forensic Sciences Foundation and Collaborative Testing Services during the accreditation process. It found that the rate of incorrect matches between evidence and reference samples exceeded ten percent.
Many call for a governmental agency to watch over forensic labs to make sure they are doing their job accurately. Today, when evidence goes to a lab, it is unlikely it will be examined by another lab or facility, thus increasing the amount of mistakes that will go through undetected.
Do you think there should be an agency to watch over forensic labs?
