There is no margin of error in a breath test ~ Ms. Christine Houston Supervisor for Kansas KDHE BAP

  1. FYI on DUI by DUI undo Consultants, LLC. – Kansas KDHE BAP
    Behind the Scenes, what you won’t hear from the Kansas KDHE BAP ‘state expert’ ~I cease to be amazed at the arrogance of some state’s breath alcohol testing programs ‘experts’ such as the manager of the Kansas KDHE BAP, Ms. Christine Houston. How can a jury believe the testimony of a person like Ms. Houston, who has ‘limited’ training in the scientific principles of breath testing. Ms. Houston has previously testified that, “There is no margin of error with the breath test because it is a singular event without any ability to determine error”Really, really? I guess when Ms. Houston went to the CMI, Inc’ factory training, CMI, Inc. forget to tell her about or give her a copy of the: Intoxilyzer 8000 Instrument Specification Final – 10/23/00 Version 1.1, which states:Performance
    Range: 0.003 to 0.600 gram/210 liters (0.015 to 3.00mg/L)

    Accuracy: ±3% or ± .003 grams/210 liters, whichever is greater.

    Precision: Standard deviation of .003 or better

    That means CMI, Inc. acknowledges that someone who is charged with DUI for a ‘reported BrAC’ result of .080, /081, or .082 could be under the impairment threshold of .080, based on the Intoxilyzer 8000 ‘Instrument Performance Specification’ listed above and an argument could be made that the defendant was really only a, .077, .078 or a .079.

    Most states require two breath samples within an .02 of each other, within 15 minutes of each other. The reasoning is that the 2nd sample should help confirm the 1st sample, if there is no .02 agreement then you could have an unreliable 1st sample due to ‘Mouth Alcohol or interferents’. If there was a not an .02 agreement, the Intoxilyzer 8000 would automatically prompt the operator for a 3rd sample.

    Now go back and consider Ms. Houston’s mind-set, saying there is no margin of error because it was a singular event is like saying the “I never make mistakes because I never double check anything”.
    The email below is form Ms. Houston’s state email address.  I  made a Public Record Request on the KDHE BAP and recieved over 4000 emails.  This email is a perfect example of impeachment evidence that the Kansas defense bar should use the next time Ms. Houston testifies in court in front of a jury that there is ‘no margin of error with a breath test’.
    I have bracketed my comments as such *[ – – ].  I have also bracketed the comments of Ms. Houston as such { – – } to show not only her ignorance in regards to the accuracy and operational specification standards for the Intoxilyzer 8000 but her bias and incompetence as an expert for the state.
     Here’s Ms. Houston’s email correspondence with Karen C. Wittman Assistant Attorney General:

    From: Christine Houston
    Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:11 PM
    To: ‘Karen Wittman’

    Sorry, I disagree. {There is no margin of error with the breath test because it is a singular event without any ability to determine error.} Since the instrument is calibrated by humans, tested by humans and tested with solutions made by humans, then there can be variation of the standard. We also give them the benefit of a lower ratio and time to eliminate alcohol. I still say what you put in is what you get out. {I guess I am stubborn too.}←  ← ← my thoughts to Ms. Houston’s comment about being ‘stubborn’:

    *[The expert witness has a large responsibility, as the manner of giving evidence that can influence the judge and jury, the decision makers in the case. Expert testimony is especially important when other evidence such as the performance of the FST’s is insufficient to help the jury come to a clear verdict. An expert witness must remain completely unbiased. I have only reviewed a couple of hundred of Ms. Houston’s emails and her comments in those emails not only expose her bias but they also reveal that she is really just ‘another part of the prosecuting team’]

    The email makes my stomach turn just thinking about how many times Ms. Houston’s testimony swayed the MADD influenced biased jury to then render a GUILTY verdict.
    From: Karen Wittman []
    Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 1:47 PM
    To: Christine Houston



    State v. Perry 118 P.3d 178, 2005 WL 2076580 (2005)
    The Court of Appeals held the district court did not err in suppressing the results of a breath test based upon the examining officer’s failure to visually inspect the inside of the defendant’s mouth prior to administering the Intoxilyzer 5000 test. Perry was arrested for DUI and offered an Intoxilyzer 5000 test. Prior to the test, the officer asked the defendant if he had any foreign objects in his mouth. The defendant said he did not. The officer believed he could rely on a suspect’s statement that there was nothing in his mouth and only visually inspected a suspect’s mouth if he suspected the person of having something in his mouth. The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s determination the State failed to meet its burden of presenting evidence that the officer followed the proper protocol for the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test. The State failed to show the protocol permits an officer to rely on a suspect’s statement instead of visually inspecting the suspect’s mouth. Since the state failed to proffer an officer could rely on the suspect’s statement and still comply with the protocol, the Court held the State had failed to meet its burden the protocols were strictly complied with.

     *[No Forensic computerized machine designed and used, by humans to provide their government with evidence on a criminal prosecution against its citizens can ever overcome or replace the integrity of its human caretakers and operators.
         Due process of Law does not allow the court to place before a Jury, evidence gathered under questionable circumstances,(or testified to i.e., Ms. Houston’s comments about no margin of error) for them then to weigh in the determination of a person’s innocence or guilt in a criminal trial.  To allow anything less would critically undermine the public’s confidence and trust in their criminal justice system.]
    I had to cut the top of page 1 and lay it over page 2 so the reader could see the title and publication date of the Intoxilyzer 8000 Instrument Specification Summary. If anyone needs a copy of this Pdf file please email or call me. I also have a transcript bank on Ms. Houston.
    Stephen F. Daniels
    Nationwide DUI Expert Witness/Consultants
    Remember, you can’t undo what you don’t know how to do…!!!
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

One Comment on “There is no margin of error in a breath test ~ Ms. Christine Houston Supervisor for Kansas KDHE BAP”

  1. Everyman Says:

    Christine Houston has also testified that single sample testing IS scientifically reliable and accurate because…that’s what the law/statute says.
    I imagine that, in pre-Colombus days, she would have been perfectly comfortable as a “flat-earth” scientist, settled cozily in the protective ignorance of untested conformity and consensus. She likely would have carried the flame used to burn at the stake any dissidents with the gall to propose that the earth was round.
    The more things change….the more they stay the same. How is it that, in the field of evidential breath testing, we are regressing scientifically? What’s the matter with Kansas? Tell me it’s all a bad dream. There’s no place like home…there’s no place like home…there’s no place like home…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: