Potential errors made by police officers during a DUI arrest include failing to follow standard police procedures, conducting an illegal search or seizure, or giving a faulty breathalyzer test.

Errors such as flawed breathalyzer tests can be a legal nightmare for police departments, as evidenced by a recent incident in Kentucky in which several alleged DUI drivers may be set free after the police made a very technical mistake.

According to an investigative report from Louisville’s Courier-Journal, the results from alcohol breath tests that were used against roughly 600 drivers may be inadmissible in court after police discovered that four lab technicians had let their licenses lapse.

In what the local prosecutor called a “very unfortunate situation,” hundreds of breath test results have been challenged because they were performed by lab technicians who were working with expired certifications.

The inadmissibility of these breath tests could lead to dropped cases against hundreds of suspected DUI drivers because the breath tests are often the best evidence police can present against people suspected of drunk driving.

According to a Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell, whose cases will be weakened if the breath tests results are thrown out, these tests represent “the single most important piece of evidence at trial.”

He also observed that the results of portable breathalyzer tests, which are used in the field as a first line of detection by police officers, are not admissible in court because of their unreliability.

Thus, police typically rely on blood or breath tests that are administered at the police station after the arrest. These tests, it appears, are much more reliable than the portable units used by police officers.

O’Connell expects that many DUI lawyers will try to reverse convictions for their clients that were supported by faulty tests.

He fears that many convicted drunk drivers may be released, unless state authorities can support their convictions with other compelling evidence, such as video of the driver during the arrest, witness testimony, or the results of field sobriety tests.

And, even if the defendants are able to escape DUI charges, prosecutors may still try to convict them on other charges, like public intoxication, disturbing the peace, alcohol intoxication, and wanton endangerment, none of which require breath tests at trial.

Despite these potential alternatives, though, Louisville police are embarrassed by the incident, which they claim is very rare and hasn’t happened before in Jefferson County.

Of course, while the police and state attorneys may be upset, there are hundreds of suspected drunk drivers in Louisville who can’t believe their good fortune.

According to Tech News Daily, inventor Al Linke recently created a talking breathalyzer that tells its users New innovations, though, continue to make breathalyzer tests more appealing for regular folks. The newest invention, a talking breathalyzer, lets people who want to hit the road know if they are under the legal alcohol limit. The device can be built from a kit or it can be purchased whole, and it costs roughly $140.

The device contains an Arduino-based circuit board, which is attached to regular commercial alcohol sensor. When a person breathes into the device, the sensor heats the breath, and a chemical reaction changes the electricity flowing through the circuit board.

Somehow, the electrical change within the circuit board triggers a mechanism that allows the user to learn whether he or she is drunk.

In a unique twist, the machine does not require users to blow into a mouthpiece. In order to keep the device sanitary for multiple users, the talking breathalyzer only requires users to blow on its alcohol sensor.

In another effort to separate this breathalyzer from other commercially available devices, Linke programmed the machine to deliver the verdict through an electronic voice. Each unit comes with several voice options, including a pirate, a New York cab driver, and an old Englishman.

The device can also be programmed with digital music or a user’s own voice. Apparently, if the device is connected to a computer, users can also send updates on their level of drunkenness over Twitter.

One caveat, though, with the machine is that the talking breathalyzer does not give an accurate reading of a person’s blood alcohol content. Rather, it simply tells a user roughly how drunk he or she is.

As a result, drivers should not rely solely on the advice given by the talking breathalyzer when deciding whether to get behind the wheel. Only professional breathalyzers should be trusted to gauge a person’s blood alcohol level, and drivers are better off not trying to drive at all after drinking.

The company admits this shortcoming of its device on its website, where it warns users that the talking breathalyzer is “for entertainment purposes only.”

Nevertheless, if the device informs a user that he or she is drunk, it could obviously serve as a rough guide for people when they are deciding whether to drive.

Still, users are warned not to rely on the device’s information in their driving decisions. No police officer in her right mind would allow a DUI driver to walk free based on the words of a robotic pirate.

Nevertheless, lawmakers sometimes feel they can honor a victim’s memory by ensuring that similar accidents are prevented in the future. This phenomenon recently occurred in the Oklahoma state legislature.

According to KOCO news in Oklahoma City, the newly minted Erin Swezey Act aims to monitor drivers with prior drunk driving offenses by requiring drivers convicted of a DUI to have an ignition interlock system installed in their car for at least 18 months after their conviction.

In addition, drivers who arrested for a second DUI offense will have to have an interlock device in their car for four years after their arrest. Subsequent offenses will lead to a mandatory five-year period with limited driving abilities.

The law is named after Erin Swezey, who died in 2009 at the young age of 20 after she was struck by a drunk driver going the wrong way on an Oklahoma City turnpike. The drunk driver had previously been arrested multiple times for DUIs and other traffic offenses.

By passing the Erin Swezey Act, legislators hope that DUI offenders will no longer be able to get behind the wheel after drinking.

The ignition interlock devices mandated by the new statute act as a sort of gatekeeper to the car. When an interlock device is installed, a driver must blow into it in order for the device to determine the driver’s blood alcohol level.

If the driver is sober, the car will start. If, however, the driver has been drinking, the interlock device will prevent the driver from starting the car.

The interlock devices are usually installed on a car’s dashboard, and drivers who are required to have the devices will also have a special notification on their licenses about the interlock device requirement.

Typically, interlock devices prevent driving if the driver blows between a .02 and .04. In Oklahoma, drivers are eligible for a DUI arrest if they blow above a .06.

While Oklahoma has been relatively late to join the interlock device movement, statistics compiled by the federal government show that the devices have a profoundly positive impact on the prevention of drunk driving.

According to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, interlock devices have been able to reduce repeat DUI offenses by roughly 67 percent. In addition, the federal agency claims that the devices have reduced DUI fatalities by nearly 30 percent.

These figures certainly seem convincing, but they actually may understate the benefits of interlock devices. In Arizona, state officials say that their new interlock program has cut DUI fatalities by more than 50 percent.

Oklahoma officials hope that the Erin Swezey Act, which takes effect this week, will have a similar impact.

Of course, the alternative to a roadside breath test, which requires using a needle to extract blood from a DUI suspect, is even more invasive and raises more serious health concerns.

In response to the disadvantages posed by these methods, two companies are developing a device that check drivers’ blood alcohol levels by simply touching their skin.

According to an article in USA Today, Takata, a Japanese company with a U.S. office in Michigan, and TruTouch a New Mexico-based corporation, are trying to make touch devices commercially viable using a $2 million grant from the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety.

In its current stage of development, the device, which is roughly the size of a breadbox, uses an infrared sensor to determine whether a driver is intoxicated.

Eventually, the company plans to scale the device down so it becomes small enough to place on a car’s start button, preventing would-be drunk drivers from ever firing up the engine.

The companies plan to sell the device for roughly $200, and with the goal of having the touch button replace the cumbersome ignition interlock device that DUI offenders sometimes have to use before starting their cars.

The companies say the device may even be hidden, or unknown to drivers, which will likely raise concerns from advocates worried about preserving personal liberties.

Despite the potential for such disputes, experts say most drivers will have to voluntarily agree to the installation of the device, and it will certainly be easier than having to repeatedly blow into a tube, provided that the technology actually works.

While the two companies are optimistic about the device’s commercial readiness, there remain a few hurdles to make the tool more sturdy and reliable.

With the grant money, the companies are looking to reduce the tool’s processing time from several seconds to just a few hundred milliseconds. In addition, the tool only works at room temperature in its current condition, so scientists are working to modify it for operation in more extreme temperatures.

There is increasing demand for better-designed blood alcohol tests in the United States, which saw almost 11,000 people die in drunk driving accidents in 2009 alone.

According to sources, deaths caused by drunk driving account for almost a third of all driving fatalities each year.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has praised the work of Takata and TruTouch, claiming in a statement that the new technology signals a “new frontier in in the fight against drunk driving.”

A program director for the Driver Alcohol Detention System for Safety, Susan Ferguson, believes that this frontier will soon be breached.

By her estimation, the touch-activated device will be on the market within the next 10 years.

A 13-year-old boy, however recently discovered that police have several applications for breathalyzers, which are simple devices used to detect a person’s blood alcohol content.

According to a recent article in the Detroit Free Press, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit against police in Livonia, Michigan after the police allegedly forced a teenager to take an alcohol breath test while on a school field trip.

At the time of the incident, the boy and his classmates were on a field trip celebrating their eighth grade graduation at Livonia’s Rotary Park.

The ACLU lawsuit alleges that the boy and his friends had walked into nearby woods for a brief walk when an assistant principal, who had followed them into the woods, found them and accused them of drinking alcohol.

The assistant principal based his allegation on a liquor bottle that was found near the boys, though they claimed it did not belong to them and that they had not been drinking.

When the police arrived, they forced the students to take a Breathalyzer test. To the embarrassment of school officials and the officers, each boy blew a 0.0, proving that they had not had alcohol.

The boy’s lawsuit focuses on the officers’ breach of his Fourth Amendment right to not be subjected to an unlawful search. The Fourth Amendment is designed to protect innocent people from obtrusive searches by the police.

According to the ACLU, federal and state courts have ruled police officers must have a search warrant to administer a breathalyzer test to someone who is not driving.

The lawsuit also claims that, not only did the police officers not have a warrant to lawfully administer the blood alcohol test, they also did not have any probable cause of wrongdoing that might have given them a reason to pursue a search warrant in the first place.

As the lawsuit stated, “[w]hen there is no evidence that a child has done anything wrong, he should never be subjected to this degrading and embarrassing procedure in front of his teachers and peers.”

As mentioned above, these types of situations are relatively uncommon. Breathalyzer tests are usually given to adult drivers when they are suspected of driving under the influence.

Even under these circumstances, however, breathalyzer tests are not infallible. In addition to the tests’ potential for making mistakes, police must also follow a strict set of guidelines when they give BAC tests.

If these police fail to follow proper procedures, or the results of the BAC test are unreliable, a DUI lawyer may help a person arrested for a DUI fight the charges.

These tests, however, may sometimes malfunction. According to a press release in the San Francisco Chronicle, a few cities in the Bay Area recently reviewed hundreds of DUI cases that involved the use of faulty breathalyzers.

Some observers believe that the problem with breathalyzers extends beyond a few faulty machines. In fact, the fundamental technology and interpretation of breathalyzer results may have flaws, as well.

First, there is the threat of condensation. These blood alcohol testing machines are used more than once, and some critics claim that the breath of one person may remain on the machine until it is used by someone else.

Unless a test is given that can be used once and only once, this problem is likely to remain.

In addition, breathalyzers test for a number of different chemicals in the body, rather than just alcohol. Some people claim this broad scope may skew the alcohol-related results.

Third, the blood alcohol testers are designed to study the “average” person. If someone falls outside the average range—for example, if a person is very small or unusually large—the machine might find that person intoxicated even though he or she is able to pass field sobriety tests.

Fourth, breathalyzers have faced criticism because of the machine’s built-in margins of error. Most prosecuting attorneys will admit that the tests have margins of error of about .01 percent.

While this may seem like a minor defect, the legal blood alcohol limit is only .08. Thus, if someone has a .07 blood alcohol level, a potential breathalyzer error could have drastic consequences.

Moreover, the same machine often provides different testing results for the same person within just a few minutes. In order for breathalyzer results to be admissible as evidence, police officers must get a suspect to blow two different readings within .02 percent of each other.

Again, this seems like a relatively small difference, but DUI arrests are often determined by fractions of a percent.

In addition, margins of error not only decide the line between driving under the influence and legal driving, they may also determine whether a person has committed a misdemeanor offense or a more serious DUI crime – which may increase the penalties from a mere fine to a prison sentence.

While breathalyzers are not perfect, they do provide an efficient, objective means for police officers to determine the level of a driver’s intoxication.

Until a more reliable method of measuring intoxication is discovered, breathalyzer tests are likely here to stay.

According to the Courier-Journal, a judge found Bertrand Howlett not guilty of DUI because the judge had a personal recollection from his experience as a prosecutor of DUI cases years ago that a burp at the wrong time could skew the results of a Breathalyzer test.

Based on that recollection, Howlett was acquitted of the charge that stemmed from when police pulled him over after, according to officials, he was seen speeding and almost driving off the road. Police said he smelled like booze and that he failed a field sobriety test, and they charged him with DUI.

However, Howlett claimed that he had burped just before his blood alcohol content was tested back at the jail—a test in which he blew a 0.15. That burp, he contended, was enough to skew the results of the test. The judge in the case agreed. Police had not, in the judge’s mind, waited long enough after Howlett’s burp for the test to be accurate.

In testimony, Howlett said that the burp wasn’t a loud one, and that in fact no one may have been able to hear it. The machine used to measure his blood alcohol content stated in the manual that police should observe a suspect for 20 minutes before a test is given, in order to make sure that the only substance tested is air from the lungs.

If the test subject regurgitates, for example, police should wait 20 minutes before proceeding.

The DUI case in Kentucky was without a jury, so the judge was left to decide on the matter. He sided with the idea that the burp had skewed the test results, based on his time as a DUI prosecutor for six years while he was an assistant county attorney.

That decision has since moved to the Supreme Court of the state, not to appeal the DUI case decision, but to question whether a judge can admit as evidence a piece of his or her own knowledge. The county attorney’s office called the judge’s use of his own personal knowledge a “manifest injustice.”

Clearly Howlett wasn’t the only one left with a bad taste in his mouth.

While he was awaiting a blood-alcohol test, police had to Taser Doheny three times to get him to submit, according to Fox 9 in the Twin Cities.

Police saw Doheny’s car make a wide U-turn at a traffic light, then speed and cross over the center line before they stopped him on the highway. When the officer pulled Doheny over, he noticed that there was a smell of alcohol coming from the vehicle, and he saw signs that the driver was drunk.

Doheny said at that point that he had drunk a “couple of beers.”

Doheny got out of his vehicle willingly, but allegedly stumbled as he did so. He did not, however, agree to take an alcohol test, and he was placed under arrest, then transported to the Jordan Police Department and read the implied consent advisory.

Doheny then asked for a lawyer and to be allowed to make a telephone call. He then refused to take a urine or a blood test. He offered to take a DUI breath test, but Scott County, where he was being held, does not offer breath tests as an option in these situations.

Finally, Doheny agreed to take a blood test at the St. Francis Medical Center. “You guys nailed me,” he reportedly said. Doheny was not handcuffed as police transported him into the hospital, but that is when things started to get dangerous.

At that point, Doheny allegedly tried to grab a police officer’s handgun. He then threatened the officer by stating, “you really shouldn’t test me.” The police officer was able to secure his gun before Doheny shoved him in the chest, and took off on foot, ignoring the police’s commands that he get down on the ground.

When Doheny kept running, the officer Tased him. Doheny kept at it, and ended up getting Tased three times as back-up arrived on the scene.

Finally he was handcuffed, put on a stretcher and taken to the emergency room, where staff reported that he was belligerent. They were able to get a reading on his blood-alcohol content.

Doheny, who has been with the sheriff’s department in Anoka for 18 years, has been placed on administrative leave from his civil division post.

Randy Dorn’s 24 hour stint in jail was the result of his guilty plea in his DUI case that concluded a week or so ago, reports Komo 4 News in Seattle.

Dorn is the Washington state superintendent of public instruction. He was arrested on March 21 when an officer in the town of Orting observed him speeding. The officer pulled over Dorn, who then failed a field sobriety test. His blood-alcohol content also measured over the legal driving limit.

Dorn, according to the police report, volunteered for a breath test and measured a 0.097 percent, compared with the 0.08 percent limit. Several other tests showed a content even higher. Dorn admitted to having had beer at a crab feed and dance at the sports club where he and his wife are members, and that he had stayed late to help clean up after the event.

Dorn pleaded guilty in a municipal court and received a sentence of 365 days in jail, with 364 days suspended.

His night in jail left him with the urge to return home, as may be expected. “That’s what I hope to do,” he said upon leaving the jail facility, “is go home with my wife and get some sleep, because I have a long day tomorrow.”

When the judge in his case asked Dorn if he had a drinking problem, the school administrator said that he did not. “I’m a diet cola guy,” he replied. The incident overall, he said, was a “teachable moment” and he said that it would not happen again.

Dorn wants to complete his term as school superintendent, which lasts four years. He apologized to Washington’s citizens, schoolchildren and parents, and to his wife and to his staff for their support.

“The past two weeks have been the worst of my life,” he said.

Dorn said in court that his attorney advised him to seek a lesser charge in the case, based on the way that the Breathalyzer was administered. But Dorn, according to him, rejected the idea, and faced the original DUI charge.

“I am a stand-up guy,” he said. “If I make a mistake, I believe I have to accept the consequences.”

According to the Savannah Morning News, the bill, brought by state representative Tom Knox, is waiting to be reviewed by Georgia’s House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee.

Representatives of Mothers Against Drunk Driving are urging the committee’s chairman, Burke Day, to schedule a hearing. Day has said that he will do so, but that he doesn’t know if he’ll do so in time for the state House to act on it this session.

In particular, the bill would allow judges to order the installation of ignition interlock on an automobile after a person’s first DUI conviction. The option for a judge to do so currently exists only for a person’s second DUI conviction.

According to MADD, Burke Day is “holding up and blocking” a hearing on the bill.

Day, in response, has said that he isn’t against interlock bills, but that he is “simply not going to let just any bill out until I have more facts,” and he emphasized that it is his job as chairman to make sure that bills are well-researched.

Day said that the state’s budget crisis has tied up hearing schedules, making it difficult to hold a public hearing about the proposed bill.

According to MADD representatives, in 2008 Georgia saw 416 drunk driving related deaths. They also said efforts similar to the proposed bill have reduced drunk driving deaths elsewhere by more than 30 percent.

While Day maintained that there were “other sides” to the issues raised by the bill, MADD lobbyist Frank Harris said that he had not heard about any opposition to the proposed bill. Day in turn responded that a public hearing often unearths this sort of opposition.

If the bill should stall this year, it will need a new sponsor next year, because Knox is giving up his spot as state representative in order to run for insurance commissioner. Of the bill, he said “I think it’s a good bill, and a necessary one.”