|
cases,
defendant Lisa Bufton of Atlanta was stopped by police for speeding
while she was driving home from a birthday party with her husband.
Bufton testified that she and her husband decided earlier in the
evening that she would act as the "designated driver".
She also testified that she had consumed two glasses of wine during
the hour-and-a-half to two hours before driving home.
During
the stop, a police officer administered a series of field sobriety
tests, which were videotaped. She was then given a breath test that
is not admissible as evidence, but can only be admitted as to whether
it registered positive or negative for the presence of alcohol.
Bufton was then handcuffed and taken to the police station. At that
time, she was given the Intox 5000 breath test, which registered
scores of 0.094 and 0.093. The state legal limit is 0.08. Bufton
was charged with two counts of driving under the influence and one
count of speeding. At trial, the jury saw a video of Bufton taking
the field sobriety tests, including the horizontal gaze nystagmus,
a nine-step walk and turn test, and standing on one leg for 30 seconds
while counting.
"She
passed everything. She was like a poster child for a sober person,"
said Spruell. After announcing its verdict of not guilty on all
three counts, the jury of four men and two women added in a written
statement their opinion that "the state's intox 5000 needs
to be further evaluated for gender bias." In the second case,
another female driver, Piyush Niak, was stopped at a roadblock while
driving home after meeting friends for dinner and drinks. Her breath
test registered .110 on the Intox 5000.
Niak's
attorney, Charles Magarahan of Atlanta, suspected that the machine
read artificially high for petite women. "I had noticed particularly
small women would come into my office and claim they had two beers
or two glasses of wine and they would get extraordinarily high results
on the Intox 5000," he said.
Magarahan
arranged for Woodford, his expert, to perform tests on his client
using the same machine.
Woodford
tested Niak and five other women by dosing each individual with
a certain amount of alcohol so the breath test would be predictable.
According to the Woodford study, the women consistently blew a higher
blood-alcohol level than they should have give the amount they actually
drank. Niak, who weighs 100 pounds, tested twice as high as her
actual blood-alcohol, according to Magarahan, who argued at trial
that Niak's actual blood-alcohol level the night of the arrest was
.065, or half of what the Intox 5000 read. After a bench trial,
the judge found Niak not guilty based on the study.
Overlooked
Defense?
Experts
on DUI defense said this argument is one of many possible challenges
to any type of breath machine.
"It's
not just the Intox 5000. That happens to be the most popular, but
all infrared machines discriminate against women," said Lawrence
Taylor of Long Beach, Calif., author of "Drunk Driving Defense."
The main problem, defense lawyers argue, is that the machine makes
a bunch of assumptions about the person being tested, assumptions
which don't take into account individual differences. These differences
can include gender, race and a seemingly infinite number of physiological
differences affecting alcohol absorption rates, such as amount of
fat, amount of red blood cells, presence of certain enzymes and
level of hormones. "The people who designed the machine designed
it to test the average white male. They're trying to pretend that
every person they test is exactly the same," Taylor added.
The
machines also make a basic assumption that the ratio of alcohol
in the blood to the alcohol in the person's deep lung air, or breath,
is 1,200:1. This ratio was based on research dealing only with young
healthy white men. "The machine assumes this ratio is always
the same, and that it's exactly the same for you, me and everyone
else on earth," said Dr. Fran Gengo, a pharmacologist in Buffalo,
N.Y., who has testified nationally in DUI cases for both sides.
However, Gengo added that he was not familiar with studies proving
that such assumptions discriminate against women.
"I'm
unaware of anything in the literature that really demonstrates that
a [breath analysis test] would systematically give a falsely high
estimate of blood-alcohol in women," he said. But Taylor said
there are four or five studies on the gender bias of breath machines.
"I'd
say this argument is overlooked uniformly over the country. It's
a pretty esoteric issue, " he said.
When
And How
The
argument shouldn't be used in every case, lawyers noted.
"Every
woman is saying, 'That could be me.' But it's not a one size fits
all," said Atlanta attorney William Head, who recently told
a client this would not be a good argument in her case, where she
tested 0.20 and was videotaped performing sobriety tests. Woodford
added the argument would be difficult to make in other states, without
specific studies performed on a given defendant.
"The
prosecution would fight it, saying you haven't done controlled clinical
studies," he said.
However,
the state's expert could be cross-examined to discredit the machine
based on assumptions the machine makes.
"You
could call any medical doctor in any state to show that the blood
volume [of alcohol] doesn't vary when a person gains or loses weight.
If that's true, the crime lab's admission is obviously flawed on
its face. The DUI scale is based on blood volume, but all the charts
and graphs used by the crime lab are based on body weight,"
he said. According to Magarahan, a defense lawyer can also point
out that the literature accompanying the Intox 5000 states that
the machine assumes the subject is a 180-pound male. Although in
the past breath machines had settings to account for individual
traits, those functions were taken away to prevent police manipulation,
Magarahan added.
This
information is courtesy of http://www.ridl.us/
Articles on this site have been found in various newpapers and magazines.
They have been reproduced here to preserve the articles and to prevent
broken links. All artciles have been reproduced in their entirety
and noting all authors and publishers.
|