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

Michigan Law on Boating Under the Influence

Michigan Law on Boating Under the Influence

Michigan Laws on Boating Under the InfluenceBoating is a fun activity, but it can be dangerous if the operator is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Michigan law prohibits operating a motorboat while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Boating Under the...

More Posts

Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.

Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.

Inside the Chinese-funded and staffed marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.During a farm inspection, New Mexico state special agents discovered an excessive number of cannabis plants in violation of state laws. Subsequent visits revealed dozens of underfed and...

read more
Seattle settles case involving – the rights of nature

Seattle settles case involving – the rights of nature

The Rights of NatureSeattle settled a lawsuit brought by the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe on behalf of salmon harmed by dams on the Skagit River. This is one of the first "rights of nature" cases in the US, and the tribe argued that the lack of fish passage measures violated...

read more
NY judge fines unlicensed cannabis shops $15 million

NY judge fines unlicensed cannabis shops $15 million

It's their corner now“This punishment should serve as a clear warning for all unlicensed cannabis stores in the state: we will enforce the law and shut down your operations,” state Attorney General Letitia James saidThe owner of seven unlicensed cannabis shops in New...

read more
When Cannabis Businesses Are No Longer Subject to IRS 280E

When Cannabis Businesses Are No Longer Subject to IRS 280E

IRS 280E and Cannabis BusinessesWhat is IRS Section 280E? Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code restricts businesses from deducting typical business expenses from their gross income related to the distribution of Schedule I or II substances per the Controlled...

read more
Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Thank You... and have a nice day eh!Disclaimer: We are not Attorneys in Canada.  This is an article of information obtained from various sources and presented here. We can only assume they are accurate.  If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and need a lawyer...we...

read more
Alcohol, Drugs, Kayaking – It could be a problem

Alcohol, Drugs, Kayaking – It could be a problem

Can I drink alcohol and smoke cannabis if I'm canoeing or kayaking or tubing or paddleboarding or just floating around?While Michigan law doesn't explicitly forbid consuming alcohol on non-motorized vessels like canoes or kayaks, it's strongly discouraged for safety...

read more
Michael Komorn-Criminal Defense Attorney

About Your Attorney

Attorney Michael Komorn

Categories

Other Topics

Driving Under the Influence

DUI in Michigan

DUI in Michigan

DUI in MichiganDriving under the influence (DUI) is a serious offense in Michigan that can result...

read more

Michigan

Your Rights

Michigan Court of Appeals

Law Firm VIctories

Share This