Breathalyzer says Goodbye
Jan 02, 2006

For decades, the Breathalyzer served New Jersey well, but law enforcement officials in the state want to retire it and replace it with a new evidential breath test that relies on advanced technology.

The Breathalyzer proved an accurate tool to measure blood alcohol concentration (BAC), but is no longer being manufactured, and as parts of the equipment wear out, they are becoming increasingly difficult to replace.

That, coupled with the promise of the new test -- Dräger Safety's Alcotest 7110 -- prompted the state to begin integrating the Alcotest county by county. But court hearings loom to determine the product's scientific reliability and whether it will replace the traditional Breathalyzer, used throughout the rest of the state.

The Alcotest is currently being used in 11 of the state's 21 counties. Defense attorneys have challenged the new test, and how judges rule in upcoming court cases will decide the Alcotest's fate in the remaining counties.


Twin Technologies
The Alcotest is really two instruments -- two technologies -- both of which take a breath sample and measure a person's BAC. Proponents say the two instruments act as insurance against each other, because both results must be similar for the defendant to be charged.

Unlike the Breathalyzer, the Alcotest does not rely on the operator's ability to read the device properly, so there's no way the operator can manipulate results. After the Alcotest is administered, a printout that yields test results and documentation of each step taken during the test is produced.

"All the operator does is plug in the defendant's name, date of birth, the date of arrest and then just asks the defendant to take deep breaths," said Camden County Assistant Prosecutor Gladys Rodriguez. "The [Breathalyzer] was very operator dependent. The operator kind of had to eyeball it and say 'OK, I think it's this.' This is operator independent."

During a pilot of the Alcotest between December 2001 and December 2002, 358 people were arrested and charged with driving under the influence, 20 of whom challenged its scientific reliability. Rodriguez presented the cases to New Jersey Superior Court Judge Francis Orlando Jr., who ruled that the technology was scientifically sound and could be admitted as evidence -- without expert testimony.

So far, police in New Jersey who have used the Alcotest are sold on it, said Sgt. Kevin Flanagan of the New Jersey State Police.

"They really enjoy it over the Breathalyzer because there's no operator involvement as far as making mistakes," Flanagan said. "It's pretty automatic. You push a button, you enter data, take breath samples and the results come out of the instrument with no operator manipulation. It's black or white; it's either above the legal limit or below the legal limit."

The Alcotest combines two independent measuring systems -- infrared spectroscopy and electrochemical cell technology -- to analyze and display breath alcohol results, providing the highest possible level of forensic and legal integrity, according to Draeger.

The infrared system operates at a higher wavelength of 9.5 micrometers, is virtually nonsensitive to any potentially interfering substances, and the temperature controlled fuel cell prevents condensation and provides an extended lifetime sensor, while guaranteeing accuracy even at extreme ambient temperatures.

Proponents agree with Orlando's ruling that the technology is sound and the test results are accurate.

The road to replace the Breathalyzer with the Alcotest statewide will travel through the rest of the 10 counties and their courthouses, where judges will decide whether to agree with the ruling in Camden or ask for more hearings.

"We wanted something more state of the art, something that would stay with us for a long time," Rodriguez said "We wanted something very reliable, very scientifically reliable, and where we could get a printout. I think it's good for the defendant and for the state to have something that creates a printout."

The process of getting the Alcotest accepted in Camden County took two years, Rodriquez said. "We brought the instrument out for a year in one town in our county. We trained 12 of their officers to be Alcotest instrument people."

The training for that town -- Pennsauken, N.J. -- was one full day, but some officers thought the training should have been for two days, Flanagan said. "When we hire new police officers from this point on, they're going to attend a three-day course on the new instrument."

But police officers like the fact that user error has been removed from the equation, Flanagan said, explaining that the Breathalyzer required the officers to go through a 15-step checklist. The Alcotest requires the operator to follow an instrumental prompt and does the rest itself.

"The Alcotest really won't let you make a mistake as long as you follow the prompt. You have no deciding factor what the results are," Flanagan said. "Once you take the breath sample, the instrument will analyze that sample by the two different technologies."

Two Alcotests are given to each defendant, which means there will be four BAC readings -- two for each of the electrochemical sensors and two for the spectrometer.

"If the results don't fall within a certain deviation from each other, you would have to go to a third breath test," Rodriguez said. "But that's not usually needed. At the end of all of that, it gives you a printout, and the printout will tell you exactly what each of those four readings were. Then the BAC becomes the lowest of all of those four together."

Another advantage of the Alcotest is that it takes just 2 minutes to complete, whereas the Breathalyzer takes 15 minutes.


Challenging the Alcotest
There has been opposition to the Alcotest; defense attorney Evan Levow claims that the instrument provides erratic results.

"We can show demonstrable errors based on the parameters set in the software by the state and Dräger, as well as errors or bugs in the software itself," Levow said. "Different machines across the state have reported different readings -- so divergent that the readings violate acceptable federal breath testing standards, not to mention the standards set in New Jersey."

In fact, 90 suspected drunk drivers were locked up for "refusal," when they tried to give a breath sample to the Alcotest. At that time, the Alcotest required a minimum blow time of 4.5 seconds; minimum volume of 1.5 liters; and minimum flow through the instrument of 2.5 liters per minute.

If all of those requirements weren't met, the Alcotest would not analyze the breath and the test would be deemed a refusal. At the time, police officers could not determine which of the requirements were not met and had no choice but to charge the suspect with refusal.

That problem has since been fixed, and officers can now determine which requirements aren't met. This, Flanagan said, should lead to fewer arrests for refusal. Under the state's implied-consent law, anyone who operates a motor vehicle has consented, in effect, to a DUI test, and those 90 suspects charged with refusal have no legal recourse to challenge their arrests, according to Flanagan.

Rodriguez said the bugs have been purged from the system, and it will prove to be accepted as a viable, maybe even better, alternative to the Breathalyzer.

"The thing about the Alcotest that makes it so different is that it's like two instruments in one, and they check each other," Rodriguez said. "It's like having two independent technologies testing under one roof."