It is quite simple. None of the government funded research in the development or the continuation of the NHTSA-approved curriculum meets the academic consensus of STARD. Whether it is the original or subsequent research that supposedly validates the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST's), the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) program, or even MADD's own statistics in terms of DUI, DUI accidents and/or DUI-related deaths.

In order for any academic research to be both academically and scientifically valid and for these or any published reports to be valid, they must meet the STARD standards. Otherwise these reports are not academically acceptable and by that very definition the conclusions contained within it are not scientifically valid. The raw data on much of the research is not available or has not been kept. It is not a transparent process. There is oftentimes manifest and well-known but undocumented bias by the researchers in favor of a particular conclusion. Yet, this Government-funded research is not only allowed in the Courtroom but oftentimes trumps other peer-reviewed meaningful studies that do meet the STARD standards that stand in opposition of the non-STARD government presentments.

Why in the Courtroom of law in America does true validated science come in last place and this whatever you want to call it pseudo-science wins?

Bob Keefer: Attorney Justin McShane confirms that drinking coffee does not sober one up

Great Pennsylvania DWI Lawyer Justin McShane exposes Junk Science used to wrongfully convict.

Hospital blood tests were not intended to be forensic tests. Hospital blood tests do not test whole blood. Hospital blood tests are not accurate.

Most people tested for alcohol by hospital blood tests have suffered physical injury.

Hospital blood tests confuse chemicals produced by physical injury with alcohol.

Virginia to Diabetics: We Don’t Care

Virginia to Diabetics: We Don’t Care

Research indicates that as many as one in seven drivers are diabetic. This figure includes drivers who may be affected but do not have an official diagnosis. Despite this fact, Virginia’s latest breath tester can’t tell the difference between diabetes and intoxication. Now, diabetics who drive in Virginia are being wrongly convicted of DWI. Worse, it appears that Virginia knew about this problem at the time it ordered the machine… and chose to cover it up.

When Virginia initially requested bids for a new evidentiary breath test device to determine blood alcohol content it correctly required the machine to distinguish among alcohols. This requirement was intended to prevent wrongful convictions. When the manufacturer Virginia wanted to hire admitted that its product could not meet this specification, officials quietly dropped the requirement but nonetheless trained operators, taught judges and represented to prosecutors that the machine performed as specified.

Drinking alcohol is called ethanol. Diabetics naturally produce another type of alcohol – isopropanol – in certain stages of the disease. Even though Virginia’s breath tester is only supposed to measure blood alcohol content of ethanol it registers isopropanol on the breath of diabetics. This reading results in false evidence which in turn results in wrongful DWI convictions.

An ancient expression about the measure of a society’s morality is how it treats the sick. Diabetics have enough challenges without the threat of wrongful DWI conviction. Join me in challenging Virginia to cease this shameful practice.

Keefer Law Firm, PLC is on Facebook

Bob Keefer discovers that Virginia's new alcohol breath tester discriminates against diabetics

Virginia is involved in a cover up with its new breath tester. Diabetics produced isopropanol on their breath as a result of their illness. Virginia was informed that the new tester could not tell the difference between isopropyl and drinking alcohol, ethanol.

Instead of telling the truth, Virginia hid the truth of the officers who enforce the dwi laws.

Thomas Dekker star of canceled Television Show Sarah Connor Chronicles charged with DWI

Mr. Dekker was involved in a traffic accident where he hit a bicyclist. If you have an accident and smell of alcohol you can count on getting arrested. The theory seems to be arrest everyone and let the court system sort them out.

Dr. Michael P. Hlastala says using CO2 to determine ethanol in deep lung air is complete nonsense.

"There is no scientific rationale for using exhaled carbon dioxide to determine alveolar alcohol concentration. First, it is impossible to get air with the alveolar alcohol concentration at the mouth. Alcohol exchanges with the airway tissue so the alcohol concentration decreases about 20% by the time it reaches the mouth. Second, carbon dioxide exchanges in the alveoli with the pulmonary circulation while ethanol exchanges in the airways with the bronchial circulation. Third, the exhaled CO2 profile is not the same as the exhaled ethanol profile. Ethanol rises sooner during exhalation compared with CO2 which rises later in the exhalation. Fourth, the rise in CO2 is influenced by cardiac output and the heterogeneity of ventilation to perfusion matching in the lungs (worse with lung disease) whereas, the rise in ethanol is not. Using an arbitrary CO2 concentration to determine when alveolar air arrives at the mouth is not appropriate because alveolar CO2 changes as steady state ventilation changes relative to metabolic production of CO2 whereas ethanol does not change with changes in steady state ventilation.

In summary, using CO2 to determine alveolar ethanol is complete nonsense."

Michael P. Hlastala, Ph.D.

Medical-Legal Consulting

7393 Braemar Dr.

Edmonds, WA 98026

Virginia Legislature works overtime to stop excessive use of constitutional rights by those used of DWI.

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts the United States Supreme Court decided that an accused cannot be tried by a piece of paper. Instead, the government must produce the person who wrote the report unless the accused waives that right. That makes sense since how do you question a report.

In Virginia the Department of Forensic Science did not have enough people to give fair trials to persons accused of DWI or drug offenses. The Virginia legislature came up with a multiple part solution: A notice and demand system where the prosecution gives notice it will use the paper and then the accused must demand the author of the paper be present at trial.

The government also gets a six month continuance to make it easier to put on that testimony. The goverment takes away the accused's right to a speedy trial as part of this government continuance.

In DWI cases the legislature went even further: they dropped the requirement that the government prove the breath tester had been checked for reliability within the last six months. So now the accused must assume the machine is reliable; the government does not even have to put it on a piece of paper that the contraption is reliable.

Virginia DFS Breath Alcohol Section finally becomes accredited!

We do not know why it took the Breath Alcohol Laboratory so long to meet the minimum standards for such accrediation. We undertand that the balance of the DFS labs had been accredited for years.

Bob Keefer recognized by Virginia Trial Lawyers for belong to VTLA for over 20 years

Bob Keefer successfully completed the Mastering Scientific Evidence Seminar in New Orlean in April, 2009

Bob learned more about Virginia's new evidentiary breath tester, the EC/IR II. The manufacturer has changed some of the terminology to confuse defense counsel and to restrict the amount of information available to those labeled as intoxicated by this gadget.

Bob learned the new lingo to better assist his clients.

Virginia Lawyers make great strides in battle with dated, unstable and unreliable breath tester

This week's Lawyers Weekly profiles listserv members Battle, Keefer, Phillips, Surovell
efforts in the forefront of seeking to examine one of the Intox. 5000 for electrical anomalies,
particularly involving knock-off motors:
http://tinyurl.com/dcz8mw

The Blog updates Jerry Phillip's Fossella case--inspection of machine 1730 to occur 4/8/09
(unless the CA makes an offer Jerry can't refuse like they did with Bob Battle :-) ):
http://tinyurl.com/cxjo99

A special thanks should go out to listserv member Bob Keefer. Those of us who have been
using various cutting defenses like machine parts certification, or going after the after-market
motors, etc., owe a lot to Bob who first FOIA'd some of the documents on which we rely.

Information provided by Bob Keefer convinces Fairfax Judge to order examination of Intoxilyzer 5000.

Bob Battle was the first lawyer in Virginia to successfully convince a Virginia judge to allow a defense expert to examine the breath machine in a DUI case. The machine at issue was an already retired Intoxilyzer 5000 machine.

At issue in this case is the fact that the chopper motor on this particular machine was replaced. Alka Lohmann, former Breath Alcohol Section Chief , the representative of the Virginia Department of Forensic Science ("DFS"), testified that the state has no idea what brand of chopper motor was put into this machine. Bob Battle convinced Goochland Circuit Court Judge Timothy K. Sanner that a defense electrical engineer should be allowed to examine this machine to determine what type of motor was put in the machine and to check to see if this had any affect on the performance of the machine.

Virginia Intoxilyzer 5000 and Chopper Motor Issues

The Intoxilyzer 5000 used in Virginia is a breath machine that is 10 to 12 years old. The manufacturer of this machine CMI Inc. of Kentucky has already developed 2 later generations of intoxilyzer machines and seems to have little or no interest in supporting the model in Virginia. Virginia has wisely chosen not to go with CMI for its replacement breath machine. It signed an agreement with the makers of the machine known as the EC/IRII to replace the Intoxilyzers in Virginia. These machines are already in use in most jurisdictions in the Richmond area.
Here is the background on the chopper motor issue. Harrisonburg, Virginia DUI Lawyer Robert F. Keefer filed a demand under the Freedom of Information Act for records concerning the machine used in Virginia, the Intoxilyzer 5000. In her August 31, 2005 email, Alka Lohmann, ex-Head of VA Department of Forensic Science Breath Alcohol section, wrote:

We need to obtain and implement new equipment because some Intoxilyzer units are already 10 (almost 11) years old. The manufacturer is no longer making all the same parts. The motors the instrument currently uses no longer last very long (due to changes in manufacturing).

In another email to Alka Lohmann and the head of DFS, an employee wrote:

The motors are another issue; the current motor will be discontinued as of January 1, 2006. The "replacement" motors are currently in short supply and have jumped from $5 to $80-$100 per motor...I believe CMI doesn't want to continue.

When questioned about this email by Keefer in court, Lohmann testified:

It's referring to one of the parts of the instrument which is the motor. The current motor will be discontinued as of January 1, 2006, this email says. The "replacement motors" are currently in short supply and have jumped from five dollars to eighty, to a hundred dollars per motor. The rest of the statement goes on to say I believe that CMI doesn't want to continue to support the 5000 line since they have two generations of instruments produced since that time.

Keefer was finally successful in obtaining internal documents from the Department that were submitted in support of an application for funding to replace the breath machines used throughout Virginia with newer models. The following are direct quotes from those documents filled out by DFS Division Director Ronald Layne:

Funding of this request will allow the agency to replace instruments (Intoxilyer 5000 instruments) that are 9-10 years old and for which replacements are not available. These instruments are outdated and the manufacturer is no longer maintaining parts and not capable of fully supporting them since current instruments demonstrate two further generations of technological advancement.

In reponse to the request form's question, "What are the expected results to be achieved if this request is funded?" the following response was given:

To replace outdated, unstable and unreliable breath alcohol instrumentation used by police officers throughout the Commonwealth to certify whether a driver is or is not impaired.

Defense Arguments in Pending Goochland Case

The use of aftermarket parts to repair aging breath testing machines is an emerging issue in the United States and Canada. There are two possible scenarios when using similar components from an after-market source on a breath machine. The first possibility is that the replacement part has the identical specifications and the second possibility is that the replacement part has different specifications.

In either scenario, the device is not the one approved originally for use as a certified breath test device. It may work, it may not, but it is certainly not the device vetted and approved by the Virginia government. Since it is no longer the approved machine, then the code sections allowing the admissibility of the breath certificate without the usual foundation for scientific evidence do not apply.

If you start swapping parts, who knows what effect that will have on the operation, accuracy, specificity, reproducibility or whatever gauge you have for the device. The defense expert in the Goochland case, Thomas Workman, an attorney, an electrical engineer and expert on the Intoxilyzer 5000 has stated:

When I was Quality Manager for Hewlett Packard, I came to understand two laws of electronic parts:
1. Interchangeable parts aren't.

2. If you think the change you made to how a part works is
insignificant, see rule #1.

I wish I had a penny for each time my HP organization had to stop the
manufacturing line because a supplier made a change that could not
possibly effect anyone, but in fact DID.

If a replacement motor rotates at a faster RPM, then the processor
may not have enough time to complete all the computations it must
perform each revolution of the wheel (since there are more
computations that must be done, since there are more revolutions of
the wheel per unit of time)

Make the motor turn slower and the problem is that the software
thinks that slopes are not being met when they should be, making the
mouth alcohol detector faulty.

The motor manufacturer for a VCR machine may think that a motor for
such a device with different RPM is no big deal. (The Intoxilyzer 5000
motor is also used in various VCR tape machines, as I recall). This
breath machine depends on the number of RPM to make computational
assessments. It is a big deal.

Prosecution Strenuously objects to Inspection at Urging of Ex-Chief Lohmann

Nancy Oglesby, the assistant Goochland prosecutor handling the case, objected to any defense examination of this Intoxilyzer machine, even though the machine is currently retired and is not even being used as a doorstop presently. At the urging of Alka Lohmann, Oglesby, who had never read the Code section, told the judge that Virginia Code Section 9.1-1105 stated that no independent exam could be done on state machines. Fortunately, the judge took the time to actually read the code section which says no such thing.

An oscilloscope is an electronic device that provides visual images of varying electrical quantities. The troubleshooting manual of the Virginia Division of Forensic Science for the Intoxilyzer 5000 states the "oscilloscope is by far the most versatile and useful test equipment tool available." Virginia has never tested any of their breath machines with an oscilloscope. Again, the Goochland prosecutor, at the urging of Lohmann (who admitted on cross examination that she has no electrical engineering training), objects to a defendant using his own funds to use a device that Lohmann's own department calls "by far the most versatile and useful test equipment tool available!"

Bob Keefer gets quoted in Rocktown Article concerning your rights in a DUI situation.

Bob Keefer shares the secret of DUI Investigation: Do NOT help the police convict you of DUI.

Usually when the police stop a person they do not have probable cause to arrest for DUI.

They gain probable cause to arrest when the accused helps them by making statement, taking tests and blowing into the hand held breath tester.

The only thing you have to do under DUI Implied consent is blow into the breath tester at the station that looks like a typewriter and/or give a blood sample.

You do not have to prove your innocence.

Bob Keefer successfully completed the Blood course in Atlanta Georgia

Bubba Head, an incredibly talented Georgia lawyer, put on a Blood Seminar in December, 2008. It was an intense class designed to teach lawyers about the science of blood and urine analysis. I learned a great deal and passed the comprehensive test given at the end.

Because of this class I now have a much better understanding of the testing that the government uses. I do not know how lawyers fight blood cases without attending this class or ones like it.

Harrisonburg DWI DUI Lawyer Bob Keefer: the EC/IR II is now operating in Harrisonburg

The EC/IR II was installed in Harrisonburg on November 20, 2008. The operators have been trained for this gadget for some time. We should see a lot of refusals from these contraptions since the harder blowing that operators coached on the old gadget often causes the new gizmo to register a deficient sample.

On the Intoxilyzer 5000 the harder you blow the higher you go. Which means harder blowing resulted in a falsely elevated breath alcohol reading. On the EC/IR II it will probably cause a deficient sample reading.

We will be able to see which operators relied upon harder blowing to obtained falsely high breath reading when we see who has the most deficient sample readings.

How to Pick a Virginia DUI Lawyer

http://www.keeferlawfirm.com/docs/How%20to%20choose%20a%20va%20dui%20lawyer.pdf

Woodstock DWI Attorney Bob Keefer asks Court to allow testing of breath test machine

Virginia is replacing its "dated, unstable and unreliable" breath testers all across Virginia.

The retired Intoxilyzer 5000s were 25 year old technolgy as the patent application for the gadget was submitted in 1983.

Replacement parts have been hard to find and Virginia started using $2 substandard, untested motors instead of the now $80 to $100 original motors.

Attorney Keefer documented a case where Harrisonburg's breath tester reported a lady's blood alcohol content to be over .60 bac; an actual blood test two hours later showed zero alcohol present in the subject's blood.

I guess there goes the theory that if one does not drink at all one cannot be convicted of DUI or DWI.

That is simply outrageous.

Attorney Keefer is requesting that some or all of these antiquated gadgets be saved so they can be tested.

Virginians need to know how serious Virginia law enforcement has been about providing accurate blood test results in DUI cases.

The new breath tester gadgets: the EC/IR IIs are in Richmond

Ed Riley, a very good Richmond Virginia attorney, has told me that the new breath testers are up and running in Richmond.

Woodstock DUI Lawyer Bob Keefer asks the Court to let his expert look at the Intoxilyzer 5000 before it is junked

The dated, unstable and unreliable Intoxilyzer 5000s are being replaced in Virginia.

DUI Defense Lawyer Bob Keefer is asking that the old breath test gadgets be saved so we can see if they really worked.

The only reason not to save them is to hide the truth: these contraptions were dated, unstable and unreliable -- just like DFS said in internal government documents.

Keefer told that Harrisonburg will get one of the first two new breath testers because of him

In late July a suspect was tested on Harrisonburg's Intoxilyzer 5000, serial number 68-001998. The suspect registered over .60. Over .60.

Two hours later the suspect registered 0.00 on a blood test.

The gizmo gave a False Positive.

Keefer held out as responsible for causing Virginia to get a new breath machine (EC/IR II)

We were recently informed that Bob Keefer is being identified during the new breath machine training as the Harrisonburg Lawyer who brought down the Intoxilyzer 5000. A local police officer has noted that Bob was named as the reason why the state government had to replace their 12 year old machines called "dated, unstable & unreliable" in internal government documents discovered by Bob.

Through diligent investigation, Bob found widespread problems that the state denied even when confronted with their own emails documenting the problems.

Lawyers police the government; Lawyers keep us safe.