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

DUI in Michigan

DUI in Michigan

DUI in MichiganDriving under the influence (DUI) is a serious offense in Michigan that can result in severe legal consequences. Michigan DUI laws and penalties are designed to prevent impaired driving and keep the roads safe for everyone. From fines and license...

Michigan’s DUI Laws and Penalties

Michigan’s DUI Laws and Penalties

Michigan's OWI Laws and PenaltiesAn DUI / OUI / OWVI conviction requires proof only that the driver shows visible signs of impairment due to ingesting alcohol or drugs. The Michigan Law Under MCL 257.625(3), you are assumed guilty of a crime if, regardless of your...

More Posts

The MSP and Your Privacy (Criminal History)

The MSP and Your Privacy (Criminal History)

Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your criminal history privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data (PPID) in a strong and...

read more
The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment: is it still a thing?The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial pillar of the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure fair and just legal proceedings for individuals accused of crimes. Ratified on December 15, 1791, this amendment...

read more
The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law Cases

The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law Cases

The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law CasesChallenges to Federal Gun Laws the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Updated July 8, 2024 Ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the...

read more
Do Passengers in a Vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?

Do Passengers in a Vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?

Do Passengers have 4th Amendment Rights?Michigan Supreme Court Limits Police Ability to Search Passenger Property in CarsBackground Mead was a passenger in a car and had just met the driver, who offered him a ride. When the police stopped the vehicle and ordered both...

read more
Do Students Have 4th Amendment Rights in Schools

Do Students Have 4th Amendment Rights in Schools

Students and 4th Amendment RightsStudents are entitled to a right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures even within school premises, as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States. However, these rights are somewhat limited for students, allowing...

read more
Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...

read more
People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...

read more
Michael Komorn-Criminal Defense Attorney

About Your Attorney

Attorney Michael Komorn

Categories

Other Topics

Driving Under the Influence

Michigan

Your Rights

Michigan Court of Appeals

Law Firm VIctories

Share This