Did an interview for a KTVU Special Segment on DUI Field Sobriety Tests

This post is the first of a three part series on physical reasons breath machines can overstate a person’s true blood alcohol level.

Reason One: Breath Temperature

Most people will realize that measuring a person’s breath to determine their true blood alcohol level is an indirect measurement, whereas measuring the blood is direct.  What is ignored by the government witnesses are the variables among individuals which can change the predetermined conversion factors from breath to the blood.  In other words, the breath machine assumes that all of us have the same physical features, such as body temperature, weight, breathing patterns, etc.  We know this is not true.  This note will explain why and how this matters.

In order to measure a gas which has evaporated from a liquid, we use Henry’s law.  Simply put this scientific rule says that if we know the amount of the alcohol in the blood, and we know the temperature the blood is heated to, then we can use a set formula to determine how much of the alcohol in the blood would evaporate in to the air.  Working backwards, if we measure the alcohol in the breath, we can estimate the alcohol in the blood, BUT WE MUST ASSUME A SET TEMPERATURE.  In state run labs the assumption is that the breath is at 34 degrees centigrade.

Henry’s law dictates that at 34 degrees centigrade, the breath will contain 82.7% of the alcohol in the blood.  How is  this important for most people?

The research upon which the 34 degree premise was predicated was conducted in 1950 by Dr. Harger.  Unfortunately he only used SEVEN SUBJECTS.  More recent research, conducted by several different scientists using HUNDREDS of subjects has determined that TRUE breath temperature is 35 degrees Celsius.  While one degree may not seem like much, using Henry’s law, for every ONE DEGREE increase in breath temperature, the results will OVERSTATE the true blood alcohol by about 6%.

Standing alone this may not seem like much, but when added to the other physical factors I will discuss in upcoming entries, the breath can be as much as 35%.

I was recently voted top lecturer at the Arizona Criminal Defense Bar DUI program. Here’s the press release

Speaking for the Arizona Criminal Defense Bar on May 6^th at their annual DUI program, Mr. Kapsack, of Kapsack and Bair, LLP, once again demonstrated why he is one of the most sought after lecturers and one of the best attorneys in the DUI defense field. Using techniques from his top selling book, Innovative DUI Trial Tools, James Publishing, Bruce lectured on redefining the process of Opening and Closing arguments to today’s juries.

Mr. Kapsack will next be lecturing in Chicago for the Illinois Bar on two topics,Trial Techniques and Breath testing. Having served as a Regent for the National College for DUI Defense, Mr. Kapsack was the first attorney in California to take and pass the Board Certification in DUI defense acknowledged by the American Bar Association. Kapsack and Bair, LLP is AVVO 10 of 10 and Martindale/Hubbell AV rated.

Recently Chief Justice Roberts fired off an opinion against most of his fellow Justices for not agreeing to review a case from Virginia regarding a DUI stop from an anonymous caller.  The Virginia case was simple; someone called 911 anonymously to report an alleged drunk driver.  Officers responded and found a vehicle matching the caller’s description.  The officers followed the vehicle and despite no bad driving to substantiate the anonymous call, stopped the vehicle.  The Virginia Supreme Court found this to be an unreasonable action in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution but the State asked the United States Supreme Court to review the decision.  The majority of Justices declined leading to Justice Roberts’ outburst.

What Roberts does not seem to grasp is that the Supreme Court has routinely held that standing alone an anonymous tip of illegal activity is not sufficient to accost a citizen UNLESS the illegal activity can be confirmed.  In Florida v. J.L. the Court stated that a 911 call of an Continue Reading »

Although it goes back to 1988, lately we’ve been getting requests for a copy of the transcript of the deposition Marcelline Burns conducted by Kapsack and Bair.

As experts in the field, you will recall that she is the person most responsible for legitimizing field sobriety tests. What many of you may not know is that we were the first law firm to formally depose her.

The transcript of the deposition is available on our main website as one of our DUI Resources.

I realize not everyone receives The Champion – the trade magazine of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), so I thought I would mention Allen Trapp’s review of Innovative DUI Trial Tools in the July issue.

Allen who serves as Georgia’s Delegate to the NCDD points out that not all of the techniques will work in every jurisdiction – fair enough. He goes on to say

the chapter on opening statements is definitely worth reading, while the chapter on cross-examination alone is worth the price of the book.

Allen also had nice things to say about the chapter on closings

The lawyer who defends DUI cases on a daily basis will find the chapter on closing arguments fertile with practical solutions to nagging problems.

Innovative DUI Trial Tools is currently available from James Publishing.

In the recent story by Sylvia Hsiehin in LawyersUSA on the ramifications of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, I provided some clarification on the scope of the ruling.

Melendez will be an issue only in criminal DUI prosecutions, not in civil or administrative hearings, noted Bruce Kapsack a criminal defense attorney with Kapsack & Bair in San Francisco.

For more details on what exactly this ruling means see my earlier post,
United State Supreme Court Reaffirms The Constitutional Right Of Confrontation

In a decision that has major implications for citizens accused of driving under the influence (DUI), the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Melendez-Diaz vs. Massachusetts. Mr. Diaz was accused of possessing drugs, and pursuant to the usual procedures the alleged drug was sent to a crime lab for analysis. Rather than bringing in the person who performed the testing, the prosecution merely produced a declaration of the test results. The US Supreme Court held that this violates the right to confront a witness guaranteed to all citizens under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

In the context of DUI cases, many jurisdictions allowed the same procedure; that the blood or urine test results could come in merely by way of a sworn affidavit. For years defense attorneys have argued that this violated the accused’s Constitutional right to question a key witness against them. Now it is clear that it does.

The Court stated that many labs are not in fact “neutral”; they are branches of the law enforcement team. As such they “may feel pressure-or have an incentive- to alter the evidence in a manor favorable to the prosecution”. Further, since the labs are products of the police agencies they often “sacrifice appropriate methodology for the sake of expediency”. In other words, sometimes people rush or take shortcuts and sometimes they fudge because they work for the same team.

Continue Reading »

My latest book — Innovative DUI Trial Tools — has been getting some really nice reviews by lawyers across the country. This type of feedback from actual practitioners is encouragement.

I recently bought Innovative DUI Trial Tools ($99 at http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/dui.htm ), and have now read it cover to cover. I took away at least 10 gems that I will put to use immediately. I thought to myself: When is the last time you got that much from a cle? Some of the material may be old hat for those on this listserv with decades of experience. But for the rest of us, I thought the book was informative, easy to use and an excellent addition to my DUI library.

Kudos to Bruce.

Chris
The Angles Law Firm, LLC

I wholeheartedly agree. I read the whole thing in one night and issued some new motions the next day.

Scott C. Nolan
Scott Nolan Law

I received my copy while you all were at the Vegas seminar! I read it and had tons more fun than I would have if I were in Vegas!!!!! Well, not really, but I probably learned as much AND it cost me less than I would have spent in one trip to the tables (because I’m a crappy gambler).

Money well spent!

Jeffrey C. Meadows
Lyons & Lyons Co., L.P.A.

Thanks guys for the nice words!

On Friday the 22nd of 2006, Judge Gorgi of the San Francisco Superior Court ruled
that a San Francisco police roadblock from last September violated the Constitutional rights of drivers. In two separate DUI defense cases, I was able to successfully argue that the roadblock, set up on Geary at Steiner, did not meet the minimal requirements established by the United States and California Supreme
Courts.

Judge Gorgi found a number of violations existed but three, in particular, seemed to bother her. First was the admission that police would stop motorists who did nothing wrong except try to avoid the checkpoint even if they used the route the police created. Additionally, the lack of proper notice
before the check point coupled with its location led her to rule the entire event was wrong. Continue Reading »