Imagine being charged and convicted of a crime, only find out nearly two years later that your conviction was the result of faulty police technology. This is exactly what happened to nearly 400 people. They were convicted of driving while intoxicated in Washington, D.C. in 2008 because inaccurate calibrations of the breath test equipment.
According to results of an investigation lead by D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles, breath analysis equipment used by city’s law enforcement officers was found to be improperly adjusted, resulting in inaccurate readings. Analysis of all 10 of the District’s breath test machines found that readings produced a driver’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) to be about 20 percent higher than it actually was.
The investigation was initiated in February 2010, after an outside consultant working for the City suspected an accuracy problem with the machines. Investigators concluded the problem occurred when an officer in charge of maintaining the machines improperly set the baseline alcohol concentration level.
The findings by Nickles’ office have triggered a rash of new lawsuits against the District and could potentially lead to requests for expungements, new trials and future skepticism about the integrity and accuracy of the tests.
Currently, the City has replaced all breath test machines with another brand and the City has begun to devise stricter standards for testing the accuracy of the machines in the future.
Nickles estimates that nearly 400 cases could be affected after the review of nearly 1,100 prosecutions occurring between September 2008 and February 2010 that relied on breath tests for convictions. Of those cases, nearly half of those individuals were taken to jail and served an average of five days behind bars.
The Attorney General does not believe that these new findings will affect the outcomes of routine DUI cases, where officers relied on field sobriety tests to make arrest decisions. Furthermore, cases involving accidents or injuries, including fatal crashes, will not be affected because blood or urine samples are used in these types of cases, rather than breath tests.
The state has sent communications to all parties involved and has encouraged the legal community in the District to inform any clients whose convictions they believe may be affected by these new findings.
