I caught up with Darcy Richardson, a toxicologist who runs Vermont Forensic Services.
In 2010, Darcy called out some of the bad lab practices in the Vermont breath alcohol lab. One of the technicians she worked with wasn’t following proper protocol when performing quality assurance checks in the lab.
Darcy documented the problems, and the issues eventually came out in court.
I talk with Darcy about:
The importance of quality controls
Quality assurance in breath and blood alcohol testing
The biggest problems she sees in breath testing
The need for standardization in breath testing
Interfering substances and breath testing
Invalid breath samples on the DMT
Transcript:
Aaron Olson 0:01
Hi, everyone, and welcome to the science of alcohol testing. I'm your host Aaron Olson. And today I have on the podcast with me Darcy Richardson from Vermont, and Darcy provides expert testimony and consultation for forensic toxicology cases. She has trained police officers and attorneys and has been qualified in analytical chemistry, blood and breath alcohol testing, drug and alcohol impairment, drug and alcohol physiology, pharmacology and many other disciplines. Darcy, thanks so much for coming on the show.
Darcy Richardson 0:31
Thanks for having me, Aaron. Nice to be here.
Aaron Olson 0:33
Yeah, it's a pleasure to talk with you. You know, I think one way that I found out about you is, I saw an article online. And it was it was an interesting article about some problems that were happening in the Vermont breath alcohol lab. And you were kind of a whistleblower, it seemed like, can you tell me a little bit about that story? And what actually happened there?
Darcy Richardson 0:58
Yeah, so that article ended up being in seven days, which is our local newspaper. And it kind of came to light with one of our big defense attorneys, raising the issue in court, because we had put everything into into record and he had received it in discovery. So what was going on was a couple of things. One, we at the time, we were implementing the new DMT. So we were the first Vermont was the first state to do that. We're the first state to order first state to implement. And so we had versions that weren't quite ready. We went through a bunch of testing. So we have that going on. But we also had some issues with a co-worker, not following proper quality control standards and instrumentation being used out in the state for evidentiary purposes that had kind of skimmed through testing. You know, for instance, it would, it would fail an interference check. And so the technician would just add more interference until it could finally see it as a spikesimulator.
Darcy Richardson 2:11
So yeah, it you know, as a, as a good employee and brought it in person at first and then recorded it and documentation. And yeah, eventually, it all came out, of course. And the governor ended up moving the program to at the time it was with the health department, and then it got moved to public safety.
Aaron Olson 2:33
So I'm sure when you brought this up to your supervisor, they were super happy, and they were glad that you were being forthright and documenting all this stuff, right?
What actually happened?
Darcy Richardson 2:45
Ah, yeah, so wasn't thrilled. Try to say, you know, oh, you're, we think it's a personality conflict. You're just you're just raising these issues, because you don't get along with your coworker type of thing. You know, we had photocopies of logs, I mean, all this objective evidence, but really tried to deviate it into I was just a personality clash. So but once I wrote it down, of course, then it's discoverable. People weren't so thrilled.
Aaron Olson 3:18
You guys put a lot of your discovery online, at least you do now, did you in that day,
Darcy Richardson 3:23
not at the time. So at the time, it was mostly done through either standard discovery requests or Freedom of Information acts. And but we had an attorney who was the one who actually raised it in court who, you know, he did requests all the time. So, you know, he had everything, and enough training to to know what it meant. So he was one of those attorneys who would take the trainings that the chemists took. So he had he had a base frame of reference.
Aaron Olson 3:53
Yeah, yeah. And what what did what was it like when this eventually came out? In court? Were you called to testify in cases where this sort of spiking other controls happened?
Darcy Richardson 4:04
Yeah, um, it was interesting, because people didn't quite know what it meant that a lot of cases got put on hold. And then every case had to be reevaluated. So it was like it took time to go through all the cases. Because some instruments were affected, some weren't. You know, some were affected by other issues. You know, an instrument had gone into the field with tolerance checks off, meaning that it wasn't checking to see if any of the quality control passed, it was just going
Aaron Olson 4:39
Okay, the interference in quality control or the plus or minus value that the control can run.
Darcy Richardson 4:46
So the tolerance check was off. So meaning that you know, the simulator fails, it didn't care, would keep going interference. That's okay. So yeah, It all kind of went out. I had to address that, you know, I was very forthright with everything. I had never knowingly testified to something that was inaccurate and still don't. But yeah, lots of lots of oversight.
Aaron Olson 5:13
Yeah. And this, this happened, it was not like you were just new in the lab and didn't know what you were doing, you would work in the lab for like eight or nine years, right?
Darcy Richardson 5:20
Yeah. So yep, I had been there for a while, we had done extensive testing. And so I came before we moved into forensics, I came from environmental testing. And if you know the difference, if you've worked in those different labs, environmental testing is so regulated, is so heavily regulated with federal standards, you know, auditing requirements, all these things. And I in my first job was with a lab that had just bought and bought out by another lab, because the previous lab had conducted fraud. And people had gone to jail, because environmental testing is no joke. Forensics, on the other hand, if you go forensics is just now getting to the point where we're starting to standardize. It's kind of been like the wild west of laboratory standards. So when I arrived at this forensic lab, I already had the frame of reference that you have to follow quality control, you have to follow good laboratory practice. And so yeah, I, I had that experience. And then I had worked at the lab for a long time. You know, we were the first ones doing the dmts, doing extensive testing. So yeah, I knew what was right and wrong and was vocal about it.
Aaron Olson 6:35
You know, working in government, it seems it's very bureaucratic, there's tons of layers that you have to go through to get anything changed. And my feeling was always like, yeah, it's a lot of work. But in the end, it's going to make the program better. It makes our testimony easier if the program is strong. Because you can, you can just say, hey, all everything was checked properly, everything was done correctly. If you shore up all the nooks and crannies of your program, then it makes testimony really easy.
Darcy Richardson 7:06
Exactly. Yeah. That's
Aaron Olson 7:09
Yeah, if there's weaknesses, then you got to take it case by case and look at all the little, the little things on each case.
Darcy Richardson 7:15
Yeah, and actually, that's some of the pushback we get occasionally with. So we're working on, you know, developing standards with ASB, trying to get some, some good standards out there for labs to use so that we're all kind of functioning on the same page. And yeah, we always get a response well, but lawyers are gonna see this, how do we testify to this, like, if you are doing a good job, following good laboratory practice with good quality control and documenting everything, it's so much easier to testify that, you know, it's so much easier to rely on your data, it's so much easier to defend it in court. If it's following good laboratory practice, and you know, things go wrong, and QC fails, you write it down. And then you fix it. And now you can defend it. But if you're trying just to blow past that, and you don't want to write down any of the mistakes, you know, you're setting yourself up for a sketchy, sketchy situation.
Aaron Olson 8:12
Yeah, absolutely. So did anything did all of that, that went down with the controls, and the tolerances turned off? Did that have anything to do with you quitting the lab and going out and working on your own?
Darcy Richardson 8:23
Partially, yeah. So I had some other, you know, personal reasons for doing so. But at the time, you know, I was sitting there going, I really hate working here. I was like, you know, my life would be much less stressful, and much easier. And I know, I have the connections if I just do this solo. And at the time, there were two other chemists who were working and solo independent practice. In my state, one of whom I had seen in court a number of times, and one of whom had actually trained me. And when he retired, he went independent. So yeah, I was miserable. The program did not look like it was going to improve. Everything I was saying was falling on deaf ears. And so it made the choice pretty easy to say, You know what, I think I'm just gonna do this on my own.
Aaron Olson 9:20
Yeah, yeah. And what was it like going in and working independently of the lab? What seeing everyone seeing the state in court? What was that experience like for you?
Darcy Richardson 9:35
Initially, it was fine. So you know, I was still friendly with a co worker, you know, we'd I'd see her at court say hi, that kind of thing. It did end up getting you know, tense there your previous coworkers. But that was pretty brief. Now. It's pretty blase. You know, the new people who've been trained how I've been the only, you know, other expert they've seen in court. So it's, you know, kind of normal everyday thing, but the good thing is, you know, working independently, I don't have anyone telling me what I can and cannot do. You know, I take the cases I want, I don't have to take the case, you know, if there's nothing I can say, I tell them that and saying, I'm not helpful in this case, which is much nicer than, you know, when you work for this state. And you really don't have that kind of choice.
Aaron Olson 10:30
Right? Yeah, um, as you think about all the different issues that you come across in your work over the past 10-12 years, what are some of the biggest issues that you see related to blood or breath alcohol?
Darcy Richardson 10:48
I think blood alcohol has fewer issues, because that does seem to be a little more standardized. Just because the methodology and the practice, you know, tends to be, you know, you've got your whole blood controls and blanks and people are running calibrations and timing mixes, and so that I think there are less issues with blood, everyone's kind of using it, and there are there, there's more quality control and proficiency testing in place, breath has really been lagging, you know, I, people aren't really enrolled in proficiency, testing for breath. Every state is running it differently. You know, we don't even have states consistently doing two breaths samples. You know, we can't we can't even decide on how many breast samples to take, how far apart they should be, what the quality control should be. How often you should calibrate how often you should maintain, we have some manufacturer or some programs, who are just taking an instrument from a manufacturer, and trusting the manufacturer, that it's fine, and sticking it in the field. So breath is definitely much more wild west type situation that hopefully will start getting corrected. But yeah, it's so program dependent at the moment. Nevermind getting into all of the, you know, which filters are you using? And are is your person diabetic? And and then of course, COVID came and it was like, what kind of sanitizer are you using in that room? Did? Are you really keeping the alcohol wipes right next to? You know, so many hand sanitizer devices next to the instrument, but
Aaron Olson 12:34
yeah, yeah. Yeah. So, you know, one of the things I'm interested in is the DMT. We both live in Minnesota, you're in Vermont, both of our states use the DMT. I've always been interested in how the filters play out and measuring whether or not there's an interference interfering substance on a person's breath. And I know there's a lot of variables on the DMT that can be set, depending on the state, depending on the software, how have you interpreted interfering substances on a person's breath in relation to the DMT?
Darcy Richardson 13:09
Yeah, so when we tested the DMT interferences was definitely one of the things that we really focused on. So we ran a ton of solutions and the DMT is actually it's very good at detecting interferences, if only the interference is present. So if you just show it isopropanol, it's good at seeing that that's not alcohol. You know, if you just show it acetone, it's good at knowing that that is not ethanol. But when you start introducing things in combination with alcohol, then it starts to get a little less accurate. So we found that, you know, when you had low low levels of acetone with ethanol, it didn't always catch it. Sometimes it added it to the ethanol reading. It's just because the filters that are used with the DMT are filters that overlap with acetone and ethanol. And, you know, it's it's not, you know, you have something like the Drager that's using filters way out at nine micron. They're not having the same issues with acetone as a DMT is because of where the filters are. So yeah, that was combinations. The other thing we found is that, at one point, we'd have an instrument pass interference checks, and then we'd test it again at a later point. And it didn't pass anymore. So and that's one thing that I've tried, I tried when I was where the state arguing for was that the those checks should be done more than just once. Yeah, they should be done periodically to see are we still detecting things appropriately? So I would love to see that in a quality control program where they actually do check that because it is an issue with the DMT just because we're the filters are
Aaron Olson 14:58
right, right. Yeah. Have you have you found out? Is there like a specific level that you can say that like, oh, it will add up to up to a certain point and no more after this, you know, after that will be flagged? Or if there's any, if there's suspicion of someone who is diabetic, should they just not be tested with, with breath?
Darcy Richardson 15:21
I mean, my opinion is that a diabetic should not should have a blood sample done. That's been my opinion for a long time, just because it eliminates the question. You know, it if you have a diabetic, and it's really not just diabetics, but that's the big one that we always come back to, you know, if you take a blood sample, we can identify the peaks, you know, we can see acetone on its own, it's not going to interfere with that, when we were doing the stimulators, you know, obviously, we're not dealing with a person's concentration, you can't, you know, spiking a person with an interfering compound would not be good, ethical practice. So we're talking stimulators, you know, the O one, in an O eight, ethanol concentration, you know, that was that was the hit or miss. If you raised it above that, it flagged it almost all its, you know, if the filters were working, it flagged it. But once you got a one and lower, you know, we know, it's just gonna, it's just gonna add to the ethanol concentration. But yeah, we still have, you know, people who fast people, you know, there was a big rise in Atkins and keto, and all of these, all of these diets, you know, for weight loss, well, the whole point of those diets is to put you into ketoacidosis, you drop weight. And if you read through a lot of those diet boards, you know, they'll tell you, Oh, go buy a cheap breath, alcohol tester on Amazon. And then you can make sure, you know, if you're getting results, and you know, it's the acetone and you know, you're, you're in the right spot to be weight loss. So we know that it's an issue. You know, obviously, a DMT has filters, whereas these little handheld devices, you know, are using different technology, but still, we know it can be an issue. So yeah, I don't think I think if there is a concern they should getting blood. And if the cops aren't, then the person shouldn't certainly should in Vermont, anyways, the subject can request an independent blood sample. Unfortunately, they don't all know why that's important. But yeah, I think it's a good practice. And I do, I do tell attorneys that all the time, you know, your clients should be getting, you know, if we suspect interfering compounds, they should be getting an independent sample and analyzed. And, you know, we've, I've had some interesting results, I've had cases with people who work as, you know, furniture finishers, who are working in poorly ventilated areas, you're obtaining stuff, and you do their independent blood. And it's, I mean, crazy.
Aaron Olson 18:04
Yeah. You know, I, I've sometimes thought that maybe there should be like a, we have implied consent laws. But maybe there should also be an informed consent type form that you fill out prior to taking a breath test or something like, are you running a fever, maybe do a forehead? Temperature check? Do you have GERD? Do you have asthma or anything that could prevent you from not providing a full breath sample? Do you have diabetes? Have you been fasting? Are you on the Paleo diet, the keto diet? And if you check any of those things, it would just make sense to rule out that sort of test. What do you think about that?
Darcy Richardson 18:42
Yeah, I think there's a lot of things that affect breath. That is not going to affect blood or other testing. You know, in Vermont, they read out the implied consent, at arrest. I think a lot of people struggle to understanding it did sober. So yeah, but asking, you know, if they're diabetic, or, you know, on any sort of diets fasting, you know, we do have questions on our processing form about diabetes and fasting. So some of that is there. And then I when I talk to attorneys, at that point, you know, I always I always raise the issues of like, okay, here's what else maybe you should be worried about. I need you to ask your client. Do any of these situations apply? So that's one way to work with it is just working with the attorneys afterwards. Yeah, it doesn't really solve the issue, but
Aaron Olson 19:40
Right, right. Yeah. Are there other any other big issues regarding breath testing that you see that are that really stand out to you?
Darcy Richardson 19:51
You know, you're mentioned of asthma. I think that was that's the other big argument I've had with people is people with COPD The or, you know, breathing issues, they'll they'll call them on refusal. And the penalties for refusal are harsher than, you know, for a DUI one. So, you know, we've had this argument, a lot of, you know, is this person trying to deliver breast sample? Or is this person screwing around, basically. And I think a lot of police are not told, really sufficiently trained sufficiently, that there are people who are not going to be able to provide a breath sample, they're just not gonna be able to provide enough air to meet the minimum volume. So I've had that issue come up fairly frequently. One good thing is that we have the graphs printed in Vermont, so we see the airflow, and you can kind of see different profiles based on whether someone's you know, just doing those little puffs of breath or whether they're trying, it's just not happening. So yeah, that's a good educational opportunity to, you know, that sometimes people aren't going to be able to and and that point, you know, you can't just immediately assume them to refusal.
Aaron Olson 21:10
Right, right. How does Vermont deal with the invalid message that you get if you have if the instrument detects the possible presence of mouth alcohol? In Minnesota? They're not required to do another 15 minute observation period, it's recommended. Does Vermont allow just rapid testing after an invalid? Or is there another 15? minute?
Darcy Richardson 21:31
No, when we were dealing with the software and programming, we had them program in a 15 minute observation period. So at the end of certain, certain messages, so if you're just starting to try to take a test, 15 minute clock has to run through, or it's not going to let you take it. If you get an invalid sample, it will make you redo the 15 minutes, it'll let you use your previous data. So it'll ask you, you know, use previous data. And you say yes, which means that for previous data, it just takes the case information you entered. And then it reruns the call quality control and stuff after the 15 minutes. So we really took it out of the hands of the officers, because prior to that, we were using the BAC data masters. And yeah, people, you know, either forgot there were supposed to, you know, wait another 15 minutes, or, you know, it was only five minutes or something like that. So we take it completely out of their hands. And it's in the programming. So they they can't override it.
Aaron Olson 22:31
Yeah, yeah, that's smart. Yeah. Well, Darcy, we're coming up towards the end of our time together. Is there anything that I didn't touch on today that you think is important for our listeners to know or information they'd like to know, regarding alcohol testing?
Darcy Richardson 22:47
I think we have touched on it. I think the standardization is a huge thing. And I think it's going to be coming. So you know, again, I help out with ASB. I'm part of the toxicology group, we've been working on breath alcohol standardization. So for calibration, there's going to be one on sample acceptance. So all of those standards are coming, and people should be aware of them. And so we can't force people to follow those procedures. But the goal is, you know, that we'll have these procedures out there and things will become more standardized. And if people are not following those standards, then I think that's an area of questioning. You know, you know, what best practices, why aren't you doing it? And hopefully, that starts coming out more, because we do have a lot of programs out there that are just throwing instruments out they haven't tested and trusting that it's going to work and I've tested enough instruments to know that they're all a little unique, and you have to test.
Aaron Olson 23:56
Yeah, yeah. Well, Darcy, if people want to get in touch with you to find out more, where should they go?
Darcy Richardson 24:04
They can go to my website, which is at VTforensicservices.com. And they can reach out to me through there, my email is there. My email address, they can always just contact me. It's Darcy.Richardson@vtforensicservices.com. I'm happy to answer questions.
Aaron Olson 24:29
Great. I'll put those in the show notes and just want to thank you again for coming on and spending some time with me today.
Darcy Richardson 24:35
Great anytime. Thanks for having me.
Share this post