Laboratory testing

May 4, 2023

The Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association presents the 19th Annual Advanced DUI Defense Seminar

On May 5, 2023, the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association is holding its 19th Annual Advanced DUI Defense Seminar at the Doubletree Hotel in Linthicum, Maryland.

The seminar, organized and run by Leonard R. Stamm in conjunction with the MCDAA will feature presentations by experienced lawyers as well as an expert chemist. The schedule is shown below. If your lawyer attends this program, he or she is getting the most up to date training available for how to handle DUI cases.

MCDAA’S 19th Annual Advanced DUI Defense Seminar

February 21, 2023

Washington Post, February 19, 2023 – “Police gave out munchies, then watched people get high — for training”

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

The Washington Post recently ran a story by reporter Dan Morse about testing volunteers high on weed to practice the tests they run when they suspect a driver is impaired by marijuana. The story quoted attorney Leonard R. Stamm.

Such drug impairment tests are regularly challenged in court across the country.

“There are real questions about the scientific validity of what they’re doing,” said Leonard R. Stamm, a longtime defense attorney and author of “Maryland DUI Law,” which devotes more than 30 pages to defending drugged driving cases.

February 2, 2023

Responsibility for breath and blood testing taken from the ME and shifted to MSP

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

In legislation enacted last year, the legislature amended statutes governing breath testing in Maryland, effective October 1, 2022. Previously, relevant statutes delegated to the toxicologist under the Post-Mortem Examiner’s Commission in Baltimore, the responsibility for approving equipment used for blood and breath testing in Maryland. The new law transfers that authority to “the toxicologist in the Department of State Police Forensic Sciences Division.”

At this point it is unknown how this shift will affect the admissibility of breath tests conducted after October 1, 2022, as these cases are just starting to get litigated. The toxicologist under the Post-Mortem Examiner’s Commission drafted regulations and procedures governing the approval of equipment for use in breath and blood testing in DUI cases. For tests occurring between October 1 and December 31, 2022, the new toxicologist simply wrote a letter extending the approvals previously issued by the former toxicologist. Whether this passes muster in court is yet to be determined. Arguably, once the legislature made the change, the new toxicologist could do anything except that as the legislature determined that the former toxicologist in charge of testing not make those decisions. Rather, the new toxicologist needs to develop procedures the assure the reliability and accuracy of breath and blood testing. Time will tell whether the new toxicologist will take the independent action to approve the equipment being used the legislature arguably requires.

For now, it is critical that defense lawyers request all available discovery from the State to evaluate whether the State has complied with the new laws requiring the toxicologist in the Department of State Police Forensic Sciences division to approve the equipment used in breath and blood testing in Maryland.

April 13, 2022

MSP Lab Acknowledges Testing Deemed Unacceptable By Accrediting Agency

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

On March 21, 2022, the Director of the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division notified the State’s Attorney co-ordinator for Maryland that the MSP lab would cease doing blood alcohol testing because the accrediting agency determined their testing procedure violated scientific requirements for blood alcohol testing. Read the letter here. MSAA BAC Letter_031522

On April 13, 2022, Clarke Ahlers and Serge Antonin released their podcast, the Black and White and thin Blue Lines, https://lnns.co/bZlMhf7g6KX , with special guests Lenny and Michael Stamm where we discuss the MSP lab fiasco, and wonder why it took almost 6 months to tell anyone about it.

If you have a DUI charge and a blood alcohol test, call 301-345-0122 for a free consultation.

November 6, 2019

Breath testing deficiencies brought to light by the New York Times

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

Recent articles in the New York Times have raised questions about the reliability of breath testing devices used across the country in DUI cases. These Machines Can Put You in Jail. Don’t Trust Them and 5 Reasons to Question Alcohol Breath Tests. The authors also interviewed a defense lawyer and defense expert in NPR, and heard from other persons connected with the breath testing process including an officer and a defendant. Blown Away: Why Police Rely On Faulty Breathalyzers.

Breath testing is used to estimate a level of alcohol in the person’s blood. Breath testing relies on an assumption that a persons breath can contain alcohol in roughly a 1/2100 ratio of the alcohol in the breath to the alcohol in the blood. There are numerous other assumptions as well, highlighted in an article by Leonard R. Stamm, and published in the magazine of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Champion, titled The Top 20 Myths of Breath, Blood and Urine Testing.

The New York Times articles highlight some of the problems that have plagued the government’s efforts to prosecute drunk driving cases. This includes problems with calibration, maintenance of the machines (officers insist on calling them “instruments”), the controls that are used, the adequacy of the procedures used to test individuals, failures in record keeping, secrecy in computer codes, human errors and others.

July 1, 2019

How much is it safe for you to drink if you are driving home? – in most cases, no more than 3 for men and 2 for women.

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

Every state prohibits drunk driving. Every state also acknowledges that it is legal to drink alcohol and then drive if the alcohol consumed does not impair one’s abilities.

The amount of alcohol that a person can drink in an evening and be safely under the legal limit varies from person to person. The main factors of weight, number of drinks, size of the drink, concentration (proof) of the alcohol, gender, and time of drinking all affect the outcome. In the 1930’s a Swedish scientist named Erik Widmark came up with a formula to calculate blood alcohol concentration (BAC) based on these factors. Using Widmark’s formula, it is possible to estimate BAC. In these calculations, there is a rough equivalence between a 12 oz. beer, and 6 oz. glass of wine, and a mixed drink containing 1.5 oz. of alcohol.

A woman will have a higher BAC than a man of the same weight because alcohol is more concentrated in the cells of a female. Since many women weigh less than many men, this difference is exaggerated with most people.

March 2, 2018

SB722 and HB1205 withdrawn after testimony from Stamm and others!

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

Many people will remember the nurse in Utah who refused to draw blood in a DUI case under directions from a police officer and was arrested. She subsequently settled a lawsuit for $500,000 and the officer was fired. As a result the Utah legislature tried to fix the problem.

In Anne Arundel County doctors and nurses have also refused to follow illegal directions from police officers. In response, bills were introduced in the Maryland Senate and Maryland House of Delegates to try to fix the problem. The bill would require qualified medical persons to withdraw blood where the driver did not consent to a test after an officer developed reasonable grounds (defined as reasonable articulable suspicion) to believe a person was driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs and there was an accident resulting in a fatality or life threatening injury.

The problem is that the Supreme Court has held in two cases, Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013) and Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), that before police may direct a qualified medical person to withdraw blood the officer must have probable cause and a warrant, unless an exception to the warrant requirement such as exigent circumstances or consent exists. However, not every case involving a fatal or life threatening injury will involve exigent circumstances.

January 20, 2018

National College for DUI Defense Holds Successful Winter Conference in Atlanta on Defending DUI Prescription Drug Cases

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

The National College for DUI Defense held its Winter Session in Atlanta this past week. The program was titled “Prescription for Disaster” on the topic of defending DUI cases involving prescription drugs. The speakers included Tony Palacios and Ron Lloyd on “Learn What the Cops are Taught: Drugs That Impair Driving & ARIDE Overview for Lawyers;” Jay Tiftickjian on “What if it Becomes Legal in My State? Navigating Through the Haze of Prescription and Legalized Marijuana;” Dr. Fran Gengo on “An Expert’s Opinion: The 3 Most Important Things Lawyers Need to Know About Prescription Drug DUI Cases;” MIchael Nichols spoke on “Not Your Father’s DUI: Unusual Aspects of Defending DUI Drug Cases;” Erin Gerstenzang spoke about “Ethically Avoiding the Personal & Professional Disaster: Client Management Before, During and After Court;” Dr. James O’Donnell spoke about “How to Investigate and Prepare to Challenge the State’s Expert in a DUI Drug Case:” Dr. Randall Tackett spoke about “The Opioid Crisis in America;” William C. “Bubba” Head spoke about “Waking Up to Disaster: Defending the Ambien Case and other Sleep Driving Issues;” Doug Murphy covered “Challenging Drug Recognition Experts;” and Flem Whited spoke about “Dr. Whited’s Rx to Win a DUI Drug Case.”

On January 3, 2018, Leonard Stamm gave presentation to the Prince George’s County Public Defenders in Hyattsville on “Drug Recognition ‘Experts.'”

If you are charged with a state or federal traffic or criminal case, call 301-345-0122 for a free consultation.

March 26, 2017

National College for DUI Defense and Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association conclude successful Mastering Scientific Evidence seminar in New Orleans

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

Last week, on March 22 and 23, 2017, the National College for DUI Defense and Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association successfully concluded their jointly sponsored annual Mastering Scientific Evidence seminar in New Orleans.

Speakers included Robert Hirschhorn on Winning Voir Dire in Breath, Blood & Accident Cases, Amber Spurlock on Mining for Gold in Blood Discovery: Obtaining What You Need & Using It To Win, Donald Bartell on Successfully Defeating Hospital Blood Test Cases, Dean Jim Nesci on The Cure for Bad Breath 3.0, Alan Wayne Jones, BSc, PhD, DSc on Over 40 years and 400 Published Articles in Alcohol Research: Pushing Science to the Limits, Robert J. Belloto Jr., R.Ph., M.S.2, Ph.D. on Prescription Medication & Alcohol: Interaction and Metabolism – Determining Therapeutic v. Non-therapeutic Levels, Alfred E. Staubus, Pharm.D., Ph.D. on Breath Testing: Reported Measurement of Uncertainty for Various Evidential Breath Testing Machines and Aspects of the Biological Variability, Donald J. Ramsell on Method Validation And Admissibility Of Forensic Alcohol And Drug Tests, Andrew Mishlove on Blood Testing for Drugs: Methodology of How It’s Done & Success Challenges, Dr. Jimmie L. Valentine on Exposing False Positives in Drug Testing, Terry A. Wapner on Affecting the Breath Test Results – LPR vs. GERD, and Steven W. Rickard on Winning with Speed, Distance & Time.

Among the speakers listed above was A.W. Jones, the leading expert in the world on blood and breath testing with over 400 published articles, who answered questions from Leonard R. Stamm regarding calibration of breath test equipment and calculating uncertainty. With respect to calibration, Dr. Jones opined that where a state has different levels of culpability carrying different punishments, such as Maryland, where the Motor Vehicle Administration suspends driver licenses for test result of 0.08 or above but less than 0.15 and for a test result of 0.15 and above, that the state should calibrate its breath testing equipment at both levels. This is important because Maryland only calibrates its breath test equipment at 0.08. Dr. Jones also stated that there is currently no accepted protocol for determining uncertainty. Dr. Jones preferred method for eliminating uncertainty is to take the mean of two measurements and deduct 15% of the mean to attain a certainty of 99.9%.

September 24, 2016

NCDD and NACDL wrap up a successful conference in Las Vegas

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

The National College for DUI Defense (NCDD) and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) just wrapped up their annual Las Vegas seminar. As usual, it was well attended and the presentations were very informative.

The conference featured presentations on Thursday, September 22, on cross-examination by Jim Nesci; accident reconstruction by Steven M. Schoor; succeeding without an expert by Tommy Kirk; and, the psychology of winning by Allen Fox, Ph.D. The conference continued on Friday, September 23 with presentations on case law update by Don Ramsell; NHTSA’s ARIDE program (Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement) by Tony Palacios; preparing for direct and cross of experts by Virginia Landry; ethics by Jim Nesci and nine other regents; gas chromatography for jurors by Suzanne Perry, M.Sc.; closing arguments by Joe St. Louis and Tommy Kirk; field sobriety test facts and fallacies by Tony Palacios; and, prescription medication issues by Fran Gengo, Pharm. D., Ph. D. The conference concluded today with presentations on closing argument by Tommy Kirk; cross of the standardized field sobriety tests by John Hunsucker (for attorneys with 1-5 years experience) and by Don Ramsell (for attorneys with over 5 years experience); analyzing a DRE facesheet and narrative report by Steven Oberman and Tony Palacios; breath testing by Jim Nesci; defending the impaired marijuana case by George Bianchi; and, how to try your first DUI case by John Hunsucker.