Source: https://www.lstamm.com/the-state-s-weak-link-simulator-solutions.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:49:36+00:00

Document:
Leonard R. Stamm is a sole practitioner in Greenbelt, MD. A member of the Board of Directors of the Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (MCDAA), his trial and appellate practice includes drunken driving, narcotics, forfeitures and white-collar crime.
In most drunken driving cases where there is evidence of testing of the defendant's blood or breath alcohol, the test must be excluded for the defendant to have any hope of prevailing. All of the instruments currently in use in this country for blood and breath testing of alcohol rely on a standard alcohol-water solution1 for calibration of the instrument, periodic maintenance, and verification of test results. The solution is highly volatile, that is, the alcohol will evaporate at a faster rate than the water, resulting in a lower than required concentration of alcohol in the solution, and potentially, false high readings on defendants' breath samples. Most jurisdictions have procedures in place to reasonably assure the reliability of these solutions, and in turn, the reliability of the test results. In many jurisdictions the .10 solution, also known as alcohol reference solution or simulator solution, is the weak link in the scientific portion of the state's case.
In the typical blood or breath alcohol case, the operator will testify that prior to the defendant's test, the machine ran a test of a "known" solution and the results were within .01 of the expected result of .10. If it is a known solution, to whom is it known? Or stated differently, who says the solution really is .10 or who is the hearsay declarant? What are the statutory, regulatory, and case law requirements for the simulator solution? Do the legal requirements meet scientific requirements? What procedures are followed by the state in either manufacturing or purchasing simulator solution? What tests are done? What records are kept? Do the records show adherence to generally accepted scientific standards? In other words, is the solution legally and scientifically valid? Answering these questions in each case may make it possible to successfully challenge the admissibility of a test result premised upon an invalid solution.
. . . at a surprise inspection of the manufacturer's laboratory (located in the back room of a Radio Shack store in Hallstead, Pennsylvania) quality control standards were found to be below the state and national levels. The manufacturer was found to be preparing the simulator solution from alcohol purchased from a local liquor store which was then mixed with filtered city water, instead of using pure, absolute ethyl alcohol. There were no written instructions given to employees concerning the production of the solution, nor were there any notes for the employees concerning the contents of the solution.
On the other end of the spectrum is Casper v. State,7 where the defendant argued that the alcohol concentration of the simulator solution should not be admitted into evidence because it was hearsay. Only the person who mixed the solution had personal knowledge of its contents, and this so-called "non-testing technician" was not called by the state to testify.
Casper also contemplates that in preparation for trial, defense counsel may investigate the reliability of the breath testing procedures. If the test results appear reliable, the defendant may seek to subpoena the non-testing technician. If the test results appear unreliable, the burden may shift to the state to produce relevant non-testing technicians. This search for unreliability, by its nature, requires defense counsel to go behind the standard certificates of analysis or of approval, which the state uses to show prima facie reliability of the simulator solution.
Brosnick and Casper serve as boundaries for a range of possible attacks on the simulator solution. In Brosnick a nine-month government investigation revealed irregularities in the simulator solution. In Casper, simply objecting to the solution proved fruitless, although the court set forth guidelines for determining when problems with the solution might lead to exclusion of the test results. It is possible to do more than simply object without conducting a major investigation. What follows are some guidelines for launching an attack on the simulator solution that can be a part of an arsenal of defenses in every breath test case.
The tools for a successful attack on the simulator solution are the tools of every lawyer -- telephone, letter, e-mail, discovery motions, and subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum. It may be necessary to consult with a forensic toxicologist to assist in drafting requests for information about the solution and in determining whether the procedures followed in particular jurisdiction meet scientific standards. But, the basic attack is simple, and in many cases can be done without an expert.
Determine whether all statutory, regulatory, and case law requirements have been met. In many jurisdictions, the state will not voluntarily provide any information beyond the printout of the test result, which also contains the simulator solution test result and perhaps a certificate indicating the solution was approved. Counsel should obtain the lot number for the solution used in the defendant's test, in the calibration test, and in maintenance tests, and inquire by letter, discovery motion or subpoena of the procedures used and all records of testing on the solution by government agencies, manufacturers, and independent laboratories.
If counsel is unable to obtain all the information sought, it may be necessary to seek enforcement of the subpoena or file motions to compel discovery and/or for sanctions. If all the information sought is obtained, it should be reviewed by an expert.
Below are just a few examples of results from the three simple steps.
In Maryland, the toxicologist under the Post-Mortem Examiner's Commission is designated as the person who must "approve" all equipment used in breath and blood tests for alcohol.12 In 1989, the toxicologist had promulgated regulations governing the content and production of simulator solution which required: a) that the simulator solution be prepared using "only purified deionized water and USP ethyl alcohol;" b) that "[a]n appropriate scientific method of preparation shall be used;" c) that the manufacturer send three "randomly collected aliquots" or samples, "each taken from the top, middle, and bottom of each batch or lot prior to packaging . . .," accompanied by a certificate of analysis, to be tested in triplicate by the toxicologist, and the manufacturer would then send three packaged samples to the toxicologist, accompanied by a certificate of analysis; and (d) "[a]ll records of the manufacturer and/or distributor must be available for audit review . . ." for at least five years.
The primary Maryland case on admissibility of breath tests is Casper which supports going behind the basic approval documents to determine whether an indicia of unreliability exists. Moreover, Casper provides a right to subpoena for cross-examination the non-testing technician who made the solution.
A letter was prepared for the toxicologist requesting information relevant to the regulatory requirements for simulator solution. The toxicologist routinely responded that the simulator solution was manufactured by Guth Laboratories, Inc. in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and that they should be contacted. Letters were then sent to Richard Guth, then-president of Guth Laboratories. He responded that the method of preparation was a "trade secret" and that the Maryland toxicologist should be contacted for more specific information.
Ultimately, under threat of deposition, Guth revealed that the simulator solution was a "vendor item" and was actually manufactured by August C. Stiefel Research Institute, Inc., (Stiefel) a laboratory located in Oak Hill, New York, and he claimed that the Maryland toxicologist was aware of that fact.
Stiefel produced a certificate of analysis that contained a small notice on the front that the certificate is subject to the conditions on the reverse of the certificate. The reverse was not initially provided. The reverse side contained a disclaimer as to the accuracy of the portion of the lot that was not actually tested (essentially the entire lot).
Eventually, the toxicologist decided to base approvals on his own testing of the simulator solution. Simulator solution would be tested by the toxicologist on a gas chromatograph, prior to approval. The process produced 18 chromatograms, test records. However, the records were not kept because it was feared that fulfilling discovery and subpoena requests in drunken driving cases would overwhelm the toxicologist and his small staff. (These records are now kept for three years).
Current regulations require that the simulator solution be tied to an NIST standard. Documents purportedly showing this are not kept. The method of production is still considered a trade secret.
These types of facts lend themselves to a number of legal issues, and the sanctions sought include dismissal, suppression of the test, compelling discovery, finding that the defendant has raised a significant indicia of unreliability, or applying a negative inference against the state.
The trial court had denied repeated defense requests to have the court order the government to allow interviews with the witnesses. The appeals court reversed Gregory's convictions for murder and other charges, reasoning that the government's interference with the preparation of the defense violated a statute requiring the government to furnish defense counsel with a list of witnesses in a capital case, 18 U.S.C. Section 3432, "elemental fairness . . . due process," as well as Canon 39 of the (former) Canons of Professional Ethics.
The probative value of the breath test result, as well as its admissibility in evidence, depends upon the accuracy and reliability of the instrument.30 Recent reported cases from other jurisdictions, such as Commonwealth v. Brosnick31 have revealed irregularities in the procedures used by other labs which severely undermined the reliability of the test results and have resulted in reversals of drunken driving convictions. The defendant here is attacking the test result sought to be admitted against him, as a result of the state's substandard procedures with respect to the testing, record keeping and certification of the calibration, maintenance, and verification solutions. Clearly, the failure to maintain records of the testing required for approval of the simulator solution, not to mention the intentional destruction of the same, is an "indicia of unreliability" under Casper. This "indicia of unreliability" shifts the burden of proof to the state. In the absence of an explanation sufficient to meet its burden of proving the reliability of the state's procedures, Casper requires the suppression of the test result.
As a result, the test results should be excluded from evidence.
Defenses Just Waiting . . .
Due process gives the defendant a right to craft a defense and prepare the case for trial. These "prevailing notions of fundamental fairness" prohibit the state from interfering with the defendant's right to "a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense."35 The simulator solution is the very foundation upon which the entire breath and blood testing system rests. If defense counsel insists on obtaining every document used in the preparation and testing of these solutions for submission to a defense expert for review, they may find, as in Brosnick, there are defenses just waiting to be raised lurking behind certificates of analysis or approval.
1. Most instruments are programmed to accept a .10 solution. The measurement, .10, is a weight per volume, .10 grams per deciliter. The .10 solution refers to the amount of alcohol that should be in the air. The level of alcohol in the solution itself is expected to be .121.
2. 607 A.2d 725 (Pa. 1992).
4. 67 Pa.Code § 77.3.
5. 67 Pa. Code, § 77.24 (d).
6. Brosnick is not the only instance of poorly prepared simulator solution in the case law. Cases in Ohio, Florida, and Illinois have also found irregularities in the production of simulator solution which required exclusion of breath test results. See, State v. Workman, 670 N.E.2d 315 (Ohio Mun. 1996); Florida Court Excludes Breath Test Evidence Because of State-Wide Problems With Simulator Solution, 14:19 Drinking/Driving Law Letter (Sept. 1995); Ramsell, Impeaching 10,000 Breath Alcohol Tests: The Solution is the Solution, 4 DWI JOURNAL: LAW & SCIENCE 2 (Feb. 1989)(Illinois). These cases represent the situation where there is something demonstrably wrong with the simulator solution.
7. 521 A.2d 1281 (Md. App. 1987).
8. Casper v. State, 521 A.2d at 1288 (Md. App. 1987).
9. E.g, Lowrey v. State, 476 N.W.2d 540 (Neb. 1991); Commonwealth v. Kelley, 657 N.E.2d 1274 (Mass.App. 1995); State v. Friedrich, 681 So.2d 1157 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 1996); State v. Benas, 657 A.2d 445 (N.J .Super. 1995); State v. Asbridge, 555 N.W.2d 571 (N.D. 1996).
10. E.g., Commonwealth v. Thill, 612 A.2d 1043 (Pa. Super. 1992); State v. Hominsky, 669 N.E.2d 523 (Ohio App. 11 Dist. 1995); People v. Boughner, 531 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995); State v. Crouch, 638 N.E.2d 861 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994); State v. Zell, 491 N.W.2d 196 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992); People v. Kilpatrick, 576 N.E.2d 546 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991); State v. Grade, 477 N.W.2d 315 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991); see also, State v. Souza, 732 P.2d 253 (Haw. App. 1987); State v. Fairleigh, 490 So. 2d 490 (La. Ct. App. 1986)(strict compliance required); but see, Thomas v. People, 895 P.2d 1040 (Colo. 1995)(once state shows prima facie evidence of substantial compliance, other defects go to weight rather than admissibility); see generally, 96 A.L.R.3d 745 (1980), Necessity and Sufficiency of Proof that Tests of Blood Alcohol Concentration Were Performed in Conformance with Prescribed Methods .
11. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954); Hopkins v. Maryland Inmate Griev. Comm'n., 40 Md. App. 329, 391 A.2d 1213 (1978); United States v. Heffron, 420 F.2d 809 (4th Cir. 1970).
12. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art., § 10-304 (b).
13. 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984).
15. 467 U.S. at 489.
16. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 489 n. 10.
18. 488 U.S. 51 (1988).
20. 473 U.S. 667, 681-82 (1985).
21. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. at 87.
22. See, People v. Newberry, 652 N.E.2d 288 (Ill. 1995)(non bad faith destruction of alleged CDS after discovery request required dismissal).
23. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 61 (1988)(Stevens, J., concurring).
24. See, e.g., Ex Parte Gingo, 605 So.2d 1237 (Ala. 1992); Thorne v. Department of Public Safety, 774 P.2d 1326 (Alaska 1989); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81 (Del. 1989); State v. Matafeo, 787 P.2d 671 (Haw. 1990); Commonwealth v. Henderson, 582 N.E.2d 496 (Mass. 1991); State v. Delisle, 648 A.2d 632 (Vt. 1994); but see, State v. Wittenbarger, 880 P.2d 517 (Wash. 1994).
25. U.S. Const., Amendments VI, XIV; see, State v. Burri, 550 P.2d 507 (Wash. 1976)(en banc). This includes the right to an opportunity to interview witnesses without interference by the prosecution. Gregory v. United States, 369 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1966); see also, Bobo v. Commonwealth, 48 S.E.2d 213 (Va. 1948).
27. Id. at 189-90. (citation omitted).
29. Casper, 521 A.2d at 1289 (emphasis supplied).
31. 607 A.2d 725 (Pa. 1992).
32.Youngblood, 488 U.S. 59-60 (Stevens, J., concurring).
33. Most jurisdictions have statutory or regulatory provisions denominating such records as "public records" and require that they be kept, in the absence of express statutory authority allowing their destruction. See , generally, 76 C.J.S. Records § 34 (1952); 66 Am. Jur. 2d, Records and Recording Laws, § 10 (1973); Md. Code Ann., Article 27, § 45A.
34. E.g., State v. Werkheiser, 299 Md. 529, 474 A.2d 898 (1984)(failure to obtain blood sample from unconscious defendant results in inference of favorable test result); Shpak v. Schertle, 97 Md. App. 207, 629 A.2d 763 (1993)(spoliation of evidence); Sweet v. Sisters of Providence, 881 P.2d 304 (Ak. 1994)(spoliation).
35. Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 485.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 77
 § 77
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 34
 § 10
 § 45
 v. 
 v. 
 v.