Minnesota Just Made Its Breath Test Data Harder to See
Other states publish their breath-test data online. Minnesota is doing the opposite.
When faced with serious scientific errors, responsible laboratories respond with transparency. Unfortunately, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) appears to be doing the opposite.
According to defense attorneys, after the recent breath alcohol scandal, the BCA changed its discovery policy so that routine breath-test discovery materials, including the Control Change and Form 31, can’t be released without both prosecutor approval and supervisor approval.
These aren’t sensitive documents.
They’re calibration and quality-control records that show whether instruments used for DWI testing were functioning properly.
The entire database should be freely available online for all to see.
These are the very documents Chuck Ramsay and I used to discover the errors in Minnesota’s breath testing debacle.
So why should a prosecutor have to approve the release of laboratory records in the first place? Science should be governed by evidence, not legal strategy.
Other States Get It Right
Minnesota’s new policy is especially troubling because it moves the state in the opposite direction of national best practices.
The National Academy of Sciences’ 2009 report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, warned that forensic laboratories operating within law enforcement agencies face inherent conflicts of interest.
It called for independent oversight, transparent data practices, and public access to scientific records to prevent exactly this kind of problem. More than fifteen years later, Minnesota has still not adopted those recommendations, and this new policy moves the state even further away from them.
A recent survey found that 26% of states had online records available for discovery.1 For example, in Alaska, after a notable dry gas scandal, the state laboratory created a searchable database of breath-test instrument certifications and reference standards. In Massachusetts, following a major forensic crisis, officials launched an online portal providing public access to maintenance logs, certifications, and even software updates.
These states recognize what Minnesota still refuses to: transparency builds trust.
Instead of Fixing the Problem, the BCA’s Fixing the Optics
Dozens of DWI cases have already been dismissed in Minnesota because officers used the wrong type of dry gas reference material during calibration checks.
Yet instead of opening its records and inviting outside review, the BCA’s response has been to limit who can even see those records.
That doesn’t fix the science; it just shields the institution.
If the BCA truly wants to restore public confidence, it should follow the lead of Alaska and Massachusetts by publishing all calibration, validation, and maintenance data online.
Transparency Isn’t a Risk — It’s a Safeguard
Science advances through openness, replication, and accountability. When a state laboratory treats its basic records like state secrets, the public is right to lose trust.
Real reform doesn’t come from controlling information. It comes from inviting independent experts to see it.
Malhoit M. Breath alcohol testing in the 50 states: A state-by-state review of evidential breath alcohol testing associated with impaired driving enforcement. International Association for Chemical Testing Newsletter 2024;35:13–21.