Expired Solutions, Expired Justice? Minnesota's Breathalyzer Blunder Goes Unreported
When Crime Labs Forget to Tell Anyone They Messed Up
When the state is trying to convict you of driving over the legal alcohol limit, it is essential that the testing equipment is calibrated by following established protocols to ensure the reliability of scientific evidence.
But recently, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) identified a nonconformity involving the use of a reference material beyond its established limits during breath alcohol certifications.
While the BCA concluded that the results met the required criteria and closed the incident without further action, prosecutors were not notified of this issue.
Even if the calibration and subject tests were deemed unaffected, the fact that the reference solution exceeded its usage limits could be relevant in legal proceedings.
Under Brady v. Maryland, any information that could potentially impact the reliability of evidence must be disclosed to the defense. Failing to notify prosecutors of this nonconformity risks undermining the transparency and accountability that forensic science is built upon.
State v. Cruz-Romero
It reminds me of the case involving Carlos Cruz-Romero.
In State v. Cruz-Romero, Carlos Cruz-Romero was charged with driving under the influence after registering a 0.097 BAC on an Intoxilyzer 5000EN. The defense discovered that the device had failed multiple calibration checks both before and after Cruz-Romero's test and moved to exclude evidence of these calibration failures. Cruz-Romero then pleaded guilty and received 10 years of probation.
On appeal, the court determined that evidence related to the failed calibration checks was relevant to whether the breathalyzer measured breath alcohol concentration accurately, whether the particular device was working properly at the time of the test, and whether the breath test was administered correctly. The appellate court ruled it was improper to exclude consideration of the calibration failures based on Cruz-Romero's lack of an expert witness, as he could have cross-examined state witnesses about the issue.
Standards must be upheld
As forensic professionals, we have a duty to uphold the integrity of the justice system. This includes ensuring that all stakeholders—prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the courts—are informed of any deviations from established protocols, no matter how minor they may seem.
Such disclosures are not just ethical; they are essential to maintaining trust in forensic evidence.
The BCA's handling of this incident highlights the need for clearer policies on reporting nonconformities and ensuring that all potentially relevant information is shared with legal parties.
Transparency is not optional—it is the cornerstone of forensic science and justice.