From Lab to Liberty: How Science Unlocked a Wrongly Jailed Man's Freedom
Breathalyzer Blunder: A Case of Misinterpreted Data
A defendant was sentenced to prison for the alleged crime of refusing to take a breath test. Ramsay Law was hired to look at the case. Mr. Ramsay saw the obvious injustice in the case and filed for post-conviction relief.
I looked at the data from the DMT and saw that the defendant didn’t refuse to take the test. He gave several sustained efforts, nearly providing the total amount of breath needed.
The judge agreed that the client deserved a new hearing and ordered his immediate release due to “manifest injustice.”
The Data Showed His Innocence
The data from the DMT showed that the defendant made several good-faith efforts to provide an adequate breath sample.
In addition, the defendant had health issues that limited his ability to provide a sample. He had:
Atrial Fibrillation
Shortness of breath (due to atrial fibrillation)
Scarring of the lungs
GERD
During one of his efforts, he exhaled for 17.75 seconds, providing 1.25 liters of breath, just shy of the 1.5 liters required.
The officer failed in two parts of his training:
He should have given the defendant another chance at the breath test.
He should have offered a blood or urine test if the subject was making a good-faith effort to provide sufficient breath but couldn’t fulfill the requirements.
Not All People Can Provide the Minimum Breath
In law enforcement circles, a common belief is that all people can provide the minimum breath required for a breath alcohol test.
I’ve found this to be untrue.
When teaching law enforcement officers, I had them take breath tests as part of their training. Occasionally, an officer would be unable to complete the test due to an inability to provide a sample. It would sometimes take multiple attempts and lots of coaching to show them how to do it properly.
A recent study corroborated this. It looked at spirometry data from over 280,000 individuals. It found that 1 in 186 men and 1 in 61 women are physiologically incapable of providing sufficient breath into evidential breath analyzers.
The Power of Science
This case powerfully reminds us that justice sometimes requires a scientist's eye. It calls for bridging the gap between the courtroom and the lab, ensuring that data becomes a tool for uncovering the truth, not just building accusations.