An Independent Review of the Intoxilyzer 9000

An Independent Review of the Intoxilyzer 9000

Part 1 – Residual mouth alcohol detection

Counterpoint Volume 2; Issue 2 – Article 3 (August 2017)

An article in the Core Skills III-2 Module

Jan Semenoff, BA, EMA
Forensic Criminalist

The opportunity to conduct an independent analysis and performance review of a new breath alcohol testing device is rare, particularly the higher-end, evidentiary-level units.

Access to these technologies is stringently controlled by both their manufacturers and the police and government agencies that control them.

Additionally, state agencies are often reluctant to publish the results of their official assessments and analysis of the devices.

When given the opportunity to perform such a review on a new Intoxilyzer 9000, I designed a series of experiments to quickly analyze the overall performance of the device.

I attended the device’s location with colleague Tom Workman (1948 – 2019) to determine its suitability and reliability in a number of key areas, including:

  • Overall design and ease of use
  • Accuracy in determining in vitro [2] BrAC levels using a simulator
  • The ability of the device to determine the presence of Fresh Mouth Alcohol using a Residual
  • Alcohol Detection System (RADS) or the so-called “slope detector”.
  • Reliability in reporting BrAC [3] readings that are highly specific to ethanol
  • The effect of Radio Frequency Interference on the device [4]​

​This article will provide a general overview of the operational characteristics of the Intoxilyzer 9000. We will additionally look at the apparent accuracy of the device using simulator readings, and examine the ability of the device to “flag” false positive reading caused by fresh mouth alcohol contamination.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Read the rest of Part One here

Parts two and three are in the drop down menu at the site but not easy to notice. The links are below if you have trouble.

Part Two and Part Three will examine the unit’s specificity towards ethanol detection and its ability to identify the presence of an interferent chemical, and the capacity of the device to detect Radio Frequency Interference.

Related Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

THC Detection in Blood: A Comprehensive Review

THC Detection in Blood: A Comprehensive Review

THC Detection in Blood: A Comprehensive Review Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive compound in marijuana, can remain detectable in the blood for several days or even weeks after use. This is due to the fact that THC is highly fat-soluble, meaning that it...

read more
It’s not hard to be accused of being a Menace in Michigan

It’s not hard to be accused of being a Menace in Michigan

“You are a menace, you’re talking louder than me, you don’t agree with me and now you're pointing at me with gun fingers. I feel threatened! I’m calling the police”. All over a minor disagreement - probably about paper or plastic. Police arrive and can only do what...

read more
Skymint acquired out of receivership

Skymint acquired out of receivership

Tropics LP, under a new entity called Skymint Acquisition Co., acquired the assets of Green Peak Industries, doing business as Skymint, for $109.4 million. Nuff saidPlease note that cannabis at the time of this post being published is still a controlled substance...

read more
Trulieve seeks $143M federal refund for 280E taxes

Trulieve seeks $143M federal refund for 280E taxes

Would enforcing payment and accepting money from a federally illegal business cause you to be caught up in RICO, CCE and conspiracy charges that would put you away for decades? For you yes - For the government a big NO.Multistate marijuana company Trulieve Cannabis...

read more
Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio (1968)Background On October 31, 1963 while conducting his regular patrol in downtown Cleveland, seasoned Cleveland Police detective Martin McFadden, who brought 39 years of law enforcement experience to the job, observed three men behaving suspiciously...

read more
How Much Does it Cost for an Expungement in Michigan?

How Much Does it Cost for an Expungement in Michigan?

Ask yourself - How much is your record costing you not to have it expunged.When you have been convicted of a crime in Michigan, you are likely aware of the negative impact it can have on your life, even after you have knelt in submission, paid the fines, served your...

read more
Pending Charges?

Pending Charges?

Pending Charges. Don't wait. Get ahead of their game. If you have been arrested but not charged yet. Don't wait while they build evidence and take your statements to use against you! They may just be building a case against you and letting you get more comfortable...

read more
Conspiracy is a Crime

Conspiracy is a Crime

In Michigan, conspiracy is a crime that is defined as "the agreement between two or more persons to commit any crime." The crime of conspiracy could be considered complete even if the actual crime is never committed. Conspiracy is a felony in Michigan, and the...

read more
Michael Komorn-Criminal Defense Attorney

About Your Attorney

Attorney Michael Komorn

Categories

Other Topics

Driving Under the Influence

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Michigan

Your Rights

Michigan Court of Appeals

Law Firm VIctories

Share This