The Truth, The ‘Hole’ Truth and Nothing but The Truth, blows a ‘Hole’ in CMI, Inc.’s Credibility

The “Hole” Truth and Nothing But The Truth

On March 27, 2006, the Intoxilyzer® 8000 was finally implemented as the evidential breath test instrument throughout the State of Florida.

To understand breath testing I need to lay a foundation so you know how we got to where we are today in Florida’s breath testing.

In 1998, as part of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), a new Federal incentive grant was created to encourage States to adopt a .08 BAC illegal per se level.   It is illegal per se (in itself) to drive a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above a specified level in all States. The previ­ous level in most states had been .10 BAC for drivers 21 and older, but now 45 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have enacted laws that set a lower level of .08 BAC. In a 1992 Report to Congress, NHTSA recommended that all States lower the illegal per se level to .08 for all drivers 21 and older.

In 2000, Congress passed the DOT Appropriations Act of FY 2001, adopting .08 BAC as the national illegal limit for impaired driving. The statute provides that States that do not adopt a conforming .08 BAC law by October 1, 2003, will be subject to a withholding 2 percent of certain highway construction funds. Each year, the withholding percentage increases by 2 per­cent, up to 8 percent in FY 2007 and later. Those states that adopt a conforming .08 BAC law within 4 years of any withholding will be re­imbursed for those withheld funds.

So the government sets the impairment level at a .08 threshold in order for the states to receive the highway construction funds from the Transportation Equity Act.  Then the government creates a ‘list’ of Department of Transportation (DOT) ‘approved’ breath test devices.  The ‘list’ is called the ‘Conforming Product List’ (CPL).

The states then draft their implied consent laws to specifically state that the only breath test devices that can be used as an evidentiary breath test device in their state must be listed on the DOT – CPL.

The first problem  is that the government sets the impairment threshold at .08 and then lists the so-called ‘approved’ breath test machines on the DOT CPL, but then that same ‘authority’ fails to format testing guidelines advising the states how to breath test for that same .08 BrAC threshold.  Most states require two breath samples but there are over twenty states only require one breath sample.  A breath test with only a single sample result does not eliminate the possibility of a false high from mouth alcohol or interferents or RFI, but the saying goes, ‘that’s good enough for government work, right?’

Now on to the rest of the story ~

The ‘Hole’ Truth and Nothing but the Truth blows a ‘Hole’ in CMI, Inc.’s Credibility

Let’s start from the beginning:

DIAGNOSTICS CHECK ~

In 2001 CMI, Inc. sent their new breath test machine, the ‘Intoxilyzer 8000®’  to the Volpe Lab which is a division of the Department of Transportation (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) Alcohol Countermeasure Support Program.  Under Section 403 of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, the Secretary of Transportation is required to carry out a research and demonstration program. In the area of alcohol breath testing, the requirements of the Act are met by the NHTSA through the Office of Traffic Injury Control Programs and the Office of Research and Traffic Records. They are supported by the Volpe Center – Volpe Lab which evaluates alcohol breath measurement devices intended for police use. Alcohol breath measurement devices are evaluated according to NHTSA’s Model Specifications for Evidential Breath Testers, Alcohol Screening Devices, and Calibrating Units. Those devices that meet the specifications are added to NHTSA’s Conforming Products Lists (CPL’s.)

Air Blank ~

The magical machine passes DOT testing:

The Intoxilyzer 8000® was placed on the US DOT Conforming Products List (CPL)list on October 3, 2002; this is the only version of the Intoxilyzer 8000® placed on this list.  The BiG question is how did the Intoxilyzer 8000® pass DOT testing when by all indications, either CMI, Inc. received ‘preferential’  treatment from DOT, or DOT didn’t follow their own testing procedures.   Here’s testimony from CMI, Inc’s former Engineering Manager William Schofield giving a little insight into that ‘preferential treatment’…

CONTROL TEST ~

Feb. 24, 2010 ~ En Masse Hearing, West Palm Beach, FL 

Defense Counsel:  Brian Gabriel, Esq.

Engineering Manager for CMI, Inc.:  William Schofield

Brian Gabriel, Esq:     According to DOT, when a manufacturer of an instrument wishes to get and instrument approved to start selling it and making money, they have to supply the Dept. of Transportation Volpe Labs with information,  correct?

William Schofield:      That’s correct.

Brian Gabriel, Esq:      They have to supply them with, according to Defense Exhibit Number 79, the Operators Manual and Maintenance Manual will be delivered with the EBT with specifications and drawings which fully describe the device, right?

William Schofield:      Yes, sir.

Brian Gabriel, Esq:      Now, the documents you have given us through discovery and the State has given us through discovery is all after that occurred.  Do you have copies and will you disclose to this court the documents you sent to DOT in the time period of January through June of 2001?

William Schofield:      Yes, I sent them a Preliminary Operators Manual and that’s all.

Brian Gabriel, Esq:     Okay. So the Preliminary Operators Manual and that’s all that you sent, is what you are telling us?

William Schofield:      Yes.

Brian Gabriel, Esq:      So you are admitting that you are not complying with DOT’s won standards but they didn’t say anything about it, is that what you are telling this court?

William Schofield:      DOT did not enforce every [indiscernible], we did not send anything other than the Preliminary Operators Manual.

Brian Gabriel, Esq:      So when – – what you are saying is that for CMI, DOT is not following its own regulations? They cut breaks for CMI right? Why are they doing that, is what I want to know.

William Schofield:      I guess you would have to ask DOT.

Brian Gabriel, Esq:      Well, do you have any knowledge to be able to impart to these Judges sitting here of why it seems that CMI, Inc. is getting a break from DOT, why they are not following their own regulations?

William Schofield:      First of all, I don’t know that it’s just CMI.  Typically, when instruments develop, the manuals are not completed until a later date, especially a service manual because you want to know what some of the problems are going to be with the instruments and how to service it. Really what DOT accepts is how to operate the instrument and how to perform the testing.

Brian Gabriel, Esq:      Now, would you agree with me that these documents, I guess it’s your testimony right now, I guess, that you did not turn over the documents required to DOT, all you gave them was the manual?

William Schofield:      That’s correct.

Air Blank ~

So DOT doesn’t follow its own testing procedures but goes ahead and lets the Intoxilyzer 8000 ® pass their ‘modified’ testing procedures and then lists the Intoxilyzer 8000 ® on the October 3, 2002 Conforming Product List (CPL).

Florida approves the Intoxilyzer 8000 ® in violation of Ch. 11D-8 Rules:

The abuse of government power continues when FDLE/ATP ‘approved’ Florida’s Intoxilyzer 8000® based on evaluation conducted on May 29, 2002 which was prior to DOT listing it on the DOT CPL on October 3, 2002.  This ‘approval’ was done in violation of Florida’s Ch. 11D-8.003, the Implied Consent Rules in effect at that time which state:  FDLE/ATP Form 34 – Revised March 2004, Ref. 11D-8.003 states that: ~ Only breath test instruments listed on the US Department of Transportation Conforming Products List of Evidential Breath Measurement Devices will be evaluated. How did Florida ‘approve’ the Intoxilyzer 8000®?  FDLE/ATP ‘approved the Intoxilyzer 8000® based on a letter dated November 26, 2001 that DOT sent to CMI, Inc. stating that “It is expected that the device will appear on the next update on the NHTSA Conforming Products List for evidential breath testers.”

Nov. 26, 2001 DOT letter from Arthur Flores to Toby Hall of CMI, Inc.

The story gets better…..

SUBJECT SAMPLE # 1

FDLE/ATP’s – Mission Statement states:

Alcohol Testing Program Mission Statement

To enhance public safety by ensuring the accuracy and scientific reliability of evidentiary blood and breath alcohol tests, facilitating enforcement of Implied Consent Laws and Administrative Rules, and promoting the qualifications and  professionalism of persons responsible for blood and breath alcohol analyses in the State of Florida.

As authorized in Chapters 316, 322 and 327, FS, and chapter 11D-8, FAC.

The Alcohol Testing Program has exclusive responsibility for: (1) the regulation of the operation, inspection and  registration of breath test instruments; (2) the regulation of the individuals who operate and inspect evidentiary breath test instruments; and (3) the regulation of blood analysts who conduct blood alcohol testing.

With that in mind you have to ask yourself the following two questions, ‘Why was FDLE/ATP able to evaluate &  approve a breath test machine in violation of Ch. 11D-8.003 that states, “ Only breath test instruments ‘listed’ on the US Department of Transportation Conforming Products List of Evidential Breath Measurement Devices ‘will be evaluated’  No where does the Ch. 11D-8.003 rule state that FDLE/ATP can evaluate and approve a breath test instrument because, ‘It is expected that the device ‘will appear’ on the ‘next’ update of the NHTSA CPL’.

AND ~

How can the public trust FDLE/ATP when the very foundation of their mission statement is  … “To enhance public safety by ensuring the accuracy and scientific reliability of evidentiary blood and breath alcohol tests”  when ‘ensuring the accuracy and scientific reliability of evidentiary breath test is impossible based on CMI, Inc’s warranty of the Intoxilyzer 8000®…???

SELLER HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY IMPLIED STATUTORY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE

BREATH VOLUME ~

What…???  That’s right….!!! CMI, Inc. does not even warranty the Intoxilyzer 8000® for BREATH TESTING…. now you know why the Intoxilyzer 8000® is refered to as the ‘Magical Machine’…
AIR BLANK~

On March 28, 2012 during a Motion hearing in front of an En Banc panel in Sarasota, FL County Court it was disclosed by a former FDLE/ATP Dept. Inspector Matthew Malhiot and confirmed by a current FDLE/ATP Department Inspector Roger Skipper that CMI, Inc. drilled a hole in the exhaust valve (purge valve) in every Florida Intoxilyzer 8000® during August of 2004.  FDLE/ATP Dept. Inspector Roger Skipper testified:

Skipper:          We did a combination of things. The engineers drilled the hole in the valve that we have been speaking of.  I believe it’s — to the best of my memory it’s approximately 3/32nds or something like that in diameter. It’s a very extremely small hole.

Mr. Rasnake: But you were present at CMI when the solution to drill the hole in the exhaust valve took place?

Skipper:          Yes.

Mr. Rasnake:  So that was a change you were personally aware of?

Skipper:          Yes. CMI notified us of that change directly in person. Myself and Mr. Malhiot were there. They told us and we reported the change directly to Ms. Barfield.

The reason for the hole was that the Intoxilyzer 8000® was under -reporting the wet bath solutions almost two-hundredths law (.02 low), i.e. the .08 was being reported as .061, the .200 was being reported as .181.  The allowable tolerance level for the .08 was between .075 – .085, and for the .200 was between .190 – and .210.  With the Intoxilyzer 8000® analyzing the ‘known’ alcohol reference solutions out of the tolerance range, the machines would have never passed Florida’s required monthly Agency Inspection testing.

Air Blank ~

Let’s back up a little bit.  If there were problems in August 2004 with the Intoxilyzer 8000 during the wet-bath simulator testing sequences, how did the Intoxilyzer 8000® pass the same testing sequences during the ‘approval testing process that FDLE/ATP conducted back in Jan. – May 2002 in violation of Ch. 11D-8.003?  So the testing was conducted in violation of Ch. 11D-8.003, what else is FDLE/ATP not disclosing?  Was there a cover-up of this ‘Control Outside of Tolerance’ problem in the FDLE/ATP  ‘approval testing process? The following email from FDLE/ATP Dept. Inspector Roger Skipper documents that the Intoxilyzer 8000 experienced the same ‘Control Outside of Tolerance’ problem ‘during’ the approval testing process:

SUBJECT SAMPLE # 2

To see this email click on the link below to go to FDLE/ATP’s website  and see p. 63

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/9df7fd48-4abb-46d8-9e66-d6ab3e8ed066/FieldTestingNotes-Memosetc2002.aspx

Alright back to the ‘drilled hole’ discussion,

The engineering brains at CMI, Inc.  decided to try using a shot-gun approach in solving the ‘Control Outside of Tolerance’ / purge problem.  After a trial and error shotgun approach to solve this problem the engineers at CMI, Inc. decided the Intoxilyzer 8000® had an air flow/air pump/ purge problem and finally decided to drill a hole in the exhaust valve.  This brought the reported values back into tolerance.  Attached please find several pictures and the engineering change notice (ECN) for the hole drilled in the exhaust valve purge valve of the Intoxilyzer 8000®.

.058 hole drilled in the exhaust valve of the Intoxilyzer 8000® in August 2004.

The drilled hole is .058 ± .004 ml or about the ½ size of a sphere for ball point pen.

The ‘Hole’ Truth

Fomrer FDLE/ATP Dept. Inspector now a defense Expert, Matthew Malhoit and current FDLE/ATP Dept. Inspector Roger Skipper both testifed that the reason the hole was drilled was due to a Control Outisde of Tolerance /purge problem that was created by a lack of air running through the sample chamber/analytical pathway/check valve. Now, check out the comments in the Engineering Change Request / Notice (ECN) section ‘REASON FOR CHANGE AND/OR COMMENTS above:

COMPENSATION FOR LEAKS IN RECIRCULATION PATH.

What…??? Those comments do not make any sense.  If there were ‘already’ leaks in the recirculation path, why would Willaim Schofield (Engineering Manager for CMI, Inc.) decide to ‘drill another hole’ in a system that already has leaks…???

This is the first ‘breath of doubt’ in  CMI, Inc’s ‘credibility…!!!

The exhaust valve/ purge valve is an integral part of the Intoxilyzer 8000® and any modifications to this valve could affect the analytical reliability of subject breath tests. During the same Motion hearing Dr. Harley Myler testified for the defense that these changes were “significant engineering modifications” to the valve which would require another recertification/approval process in Florida.

The modified valve is an integral part of the purging mechanism of the Intoxilyzer 8000®. It is important that the Intoxilyzer only analyze air from the subject being tested. In order to reliably analyze the subject’s breath, prior to analysis, the Intoxilyzer must purge the sample chamber of all alcohol, including alcohol introduced during control tests or left over from a previous subject test.  Based on this recent disclosure, the reliability of any breath test results cannot be deemed to be scientifically reliable or accurate.  This disclosure also creates reasonable doubt as to whether or not the results are quantitative of a person’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving or at the time of the breath test.

Florida’s Intoxilyzers serial numbers start at 80-000200.  This modification also affects every Intoxilyzer built after August-2004 that is used in over 25 states.  The significance of this discovery is that, the modification of the exhaust valve changed the analytical reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000® because without the modification the Intoxilyzer 8000® would not have passed the wet-bath simulator testing that is required during Florida’s Ch. 11D-8 monthly inspections.

The state wants the courts and juries to believe that the Intoxilyzer 8000® produces scientifically reliable and accurate results but ever since Florida went on-line with the Intoxilyzer 8000 in March 2006 the defense has found one defect after another and exposed one cover-up after another.  The following is a perfect example of one of the defects where this magical machine produces BrAC results with a 0.000 breath volume.

In 2006-2012 the defense found hundreds of breath test results (BrAC) with no breath volume supplied. WHAT…??? Back in 2006 we found hundreds of BrAC results with a 0.000 breath volume. How do you get a BrAC result with no breath sample supplied…??? Remember, the Intoxilyzer 8000® is a magical machine.  What was FDEL/ATP’s excuse?  FDLE/ATP called CMI, Inc. and ‘someone’ came up with the ‘excuse’ or maybe it was a great job by CMI, Inc’s PR Dept. to manage damage control and spin the ‘story’ that there was a glitch in the 8100.26 Software where a Subject had only 3 minutes to provide a breath sample.  ‘Supposedly’ the excuse that was spun by FDLE/ATP and CMI, Inc. was that the Subject started providing a breath sample at 2:55 seconds into the 3 minute window and blew ‘past’ that 3 minute window and that the Intoxilyzer 8000® correctly analyzed the sample provided into the machine but since the Subject ‘blew’ past the 3 minute window, the device correctly reported the BrAC sample that was provided but reported 0.000 for the breath volume.

Okay, I’ll give them that one.  So what happens next?  CMI, Inc’ develops Software version 8100.27 that is ‘supposed’ to eliminate this ‘Software glitch’, right?  WRONG?  After Software version 8100.27 was implemented into all of Florida’s Intoxilyzer 8000®’s by FDLE/ATP, we started seeing more BrAC results with 0.000 breath volume.

BREATH VOLUME ~

Here’s one example from 2008 with 8100.27 Software ~

 Now what was FDLE/ATP and CMI, Inc’s ‘excuse’ for yet another anomaly?  The damage control spin this time was that a subject provided a breath sample that did not meet volume into the instrument; the instrument saves the alcohol result obtained and the breath volume associated with that breath sample. Because a valid sample has not been received, the instrument will display PROVIDE SAMPLE NOW. The subject will have up to three (3) minutes to provide a valid sample. The subject subsequently provides an additional strong puff of breath that is sufficient to reset the flow meter to 0.000 Liters, but the puff is not sufficient enough in flow or sustained long enough to begin the calculation of an alcohol result. The instrument reports the alcohol result from the first insufficient volume breath sample (reported as VOLUME NOT MET) but reports the breath volume (0.000 Liters) from the second additional strong, non-sustained puff of breath.

Yeah,  CMI, Inc. expects the court and jury to ‘believe’ that the software was written to ‘remember the ‘highest BrAC’ but not the highest breath volume’…. yeah, that excuse is believable.  Doesn’t this sound like the ol’ saying, it’s good enough for government work, right?

AIR BLANK ~

Speaking of government work,  did CMI, Inc. ever notify DOT of the modification to the Intoxilyzer 8000®.  No…!!!  Need proof?  Here’s an affidavit for Brian Falkner the Engineering Manager for CMI, Inc. ~

CMI, Inc. DID NOT notify DOT of modification

This is the second ‘breath of doubt’ in CMI, Inc’s ‘credibility’…!!! (the purpose of two breath samples in a breath test is that the second sample is ‘supposed to’ confirm the first sample’s result, ‘if‘ the device is ‘operating properly’ with the key words here being –operating properly. Without full transparency one cannot verify if the Intoxilyzer 8000® was ‘operating properly’.)

[I will write another Blog on the ‘Pull the Plug’ situation that happened in Florida where an FDLE/ATP Department Inspector ‘Pulled the Plug’ to delete failing test results and when a Hillsborough County Sheriff Office Agency Inspector falsified a testing failure excuse ‘(Replaced O-Ring) allowing her to ‘cover-up the malfunction/Control Outside of Tolerance testing failure. The Intoxilyzer 8000® stayed in evidentiary service. In regards to this situation, I also met with FDLE/ATP Alcohol Program Manager Ms. Laura Barfield and showed her the following video, to which both FDLE/ATP and HSCO failed to act on. ~  Fake O-Ring Excuse by HCSO AI Beverly Gray on 06-18-2008).]

Provide Sample Now:

Did CMI, Inc. ever notify FDLE/ATP of the modification?  NO…!!! Again, CMI, Inc. disregards their contractual duties to clients.  Per the rules in effect at the time, specifically, Florida’s F.A.C. Ch.11D-8.003 (5) states that, “A manufacturer whose instrument has been previously approved by the Department (FDLE/ATP) shal notify the Department (FDLE/ATP) in ‘writing’ prior to making an modification or adding a new option to such instrument. The Department shall ‘evaluate such modifications or options to an approved breath test instrument and determine whether they affect the instrument’s method of analysis (it did not, still infrared spectrometry analysis) or analytical reliablility (it did, without modification the device would have never passed the Ch. 11D-8 required monthly Agency Inspection):

NOTICE: ~ ‘shall notify the Department in writing prior to making any modification’

CONTROL TEST ~

What does the Federal Register/ Vol. 58, No. 179 / pp 48705-48710 / Friday, September 17, 1993 / Notices (58 FR 48705) say?

Highway Safety Programs; Model Specifications for Devices to Measure Breath Alcohol

Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

Action: Notice.

 

So, CMI, Inc. modified the Intoxilyzer 8000®, then they DID NOT notify the NHTSA or DOT of the ‘modification’ but, the bigger questions are who is responsible for posting the Federal Register/ Vol. 58, No. 179 / pp 48705-48710 / Friday, September 17, 1993 / Notices (58 FR 48705) on the DOT Volpe Lab website?  And, who edited the FR/Vol. 58, No. 179 / pp 48705-48710, Friday Sept. 17, 1993?

AIR BLANK ~

Volpe Labs was this same edited version posted on their website which is mysteriously missing the last two paragraphs of Appendix B, which state:

If necessary for clarity, drawings of the current and changed device may also be helpful in NHTSA’s deliberations.

If, upon review of information provided by the manufacturer, it is determined that re-testing is not warranted, statement to that effect will be included in the next scheduled CPL update.

http://www.volpe.dot.gov/coi/ees/docs/ebt-model-specifications.pdf

DIAGNOSTICS CHECK ~

~ CMI, Inc. DID NOT notify NHTSA – DOT of the modification to the Intoxilyzer 8000® and Volpe Lab a division of DOT has a misleading Federal Reg on their website. Considering all of the above information, one has to wonder who is responsible for a breath test device that is NOT listed on the DOT CPL being used in over 25 states as an evidentiary breath test device. Is DOT responsible? Is Volpe Lab responsible? Or is CMI, Inc. solely responsible due to their admission of withholding the information from DOT? The next questions one has to ask is since CMI, Inc. has admitted that they DID NOT inform NHTSA – DOT of the modification, has CMI, Inc. now opened itself to a potential STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY class action lawsuit?

The most recent evolution in tort law, strict liability, has transformed the very nature of product liability because it eliminates the entire question of negligence. Strict liability only requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that a product caused an injury because it was defective; the reason for the defect is irrelevant. The product itself, not the defendant’s use, is under investigation.

Under strict liability, the manufacturer is held liable for allowing a defective product to enter the marketplace. The issue is a matter of public policy, not the manufacturer’s unreasonable or negligent conduct. The introduction of a defective product into the marketplace brings each member of the product’s distribution channel into liability for negligence. The theory of strict liability holds that manufacturers: have the greatest control over the quality of their products; can distribute their costs by raising prices; and have special responsibilities in their role as sellers.

Maybe, just maybe, DOT, Volpe Lab and CMI, Inc. are involved and this is a conspiracy to cover this up…. just my thoughts ~

What’s next for the Intoxilyzer 8000®?

It’s the same story as the Intoxilyzer 5000®, when there is a problem or when the defense exposes the flaws with ‘current’ or newest EBT like the Intoxilyzer 8000® or when the EBT becomes a financial drain because of all the legal challenges, CMI, Inc.’s standard operating procedure is to phase out that Intoxilyzer and launch the ‘new and improved Intoxilyzer —- so get ready for CMI, Inc’s nationwide launch of its newest ‘magical machine, the Intoxilyzer 9000®.

RESULTS ~

The only question each state should ask before they decide to do business with CMI, Inc. and spend millions of taxpayer dollars on the new and improved ‘Intoxilyzer 9000®’ is…. “Can CMI, Inc. be trusted anymore or does their credibility have a gaping hole in it…???

Well, maybe not gaping hole, just a .058 hole….. but that .058 hole is the difference between scientific reliability and another judicial financial nightmare like the Intoxilyzer 8000 was for the state.

In the meantime, almost every state that uses the Intoxilyzer 8000® has specific language in their respective statutes that require their EBT to be listed on the DOT CPL.  Since CMI, Inc. has admitted that they never notified NHTSA or DOT of the modification, the Intoxilyzer 8000® used in over 25 states is not ‘currently’ listed on the DOT CPL. I believe that there is more than enough evidence here to suppress every breath test result from every Intoxilyzer 8000® used in every state.

In addition, this evidence not only covers pending DUI charges but,  potentially all breath test evidence all the way back to March 2006  was inadmissible based on the recent discovery that the Intoxilyzer 8000® was modified after it was listed on the DOT CPL. This discovery means that ‘the Intoxilyzer 8000® currently in use in Florida is NOT an Ch. 11D-8 approved breath test device’ in addition, ALL ‘Intoxilyzer 8000’s® in use in the United States are NOT listed on the DOT CPL.  Florida’s Ch. 11D-8 rules require that all evidentuary breath test devices used in Florida must be listed on the DOT CPL.   Anyone who was arrested for DUI in Florida who was convicted or plead out to a DUI charge with evidence from March 2006 until the modified Intoxilyzer 8000® is listed on the DOT CPL could potentially petition the court to reopen their case by filing a 3.850 Motion For Post Conviction Relief based on this new evidence.

If you need additional information on this issue please contact me.

 Stephen F. Daniels

http://www.DUIundo.com

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: CMI, Inc., FDLE/ATP, FYI on DUI, Intoxilyzer 9000, Uncategorized

Tags: , , , ,

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

4 Comments on “The Truth, The ‘Hole’ Truth and Nothing but The Truth, blows a ‘Hole’ in CMI, Inc.’s Credibility”

  1. Peggy Hess Says:

    Thanks Stephen Daniels for your tenacity in exposing the flaws of the machine as well as the flaws in the law.. peggy

  2. Everyman Says:

    Simply incredible. Great article. Makes one wonder….why was Florida in such a hurry to implement the 8000? Why does Volpe Labs feel the need to misrepresent and omit what is stated in the Federal Registry? Why would DOT feel entitled to just ignore their own procedures for testing? The bottom-line answer is MONEY. All of these corporate entities need to make a profit…off of taxpaying citizens.
    DUI has become big business. Profit through force (theft) and under the guise of Due Process. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. For the love of money is the root of all evil. Put them together behind the cause of ‘public safety’ and you get self-righteous crusaders acting outside of the law and regulation, and conspiring to deprive people of their life, liberty, and property. At some point, the actors in all of these organizations must have become aware that they are members of a criminal conspiracy.
    There must be remedy under the law.

    • Peggy Says:

      Everyman you hit it right on the head!
      If it’s not about the $$$ … then it’s all about the $$$!

      The system acts like a big meat grinder… eats you up and spits you out ….. then back into the meat grinder you go only to be spit out again…. squeezing you for all your worth.both financially and mentally as well as socially.

      The system is broken and is set up to make you fail! because it’s all about the $$$.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: