One Minnesota Judge recently threw out a urine test in Minnesota, citing the lack of scientific safeguards to ensure the result is valid and reliable. Click here for More ...
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) claims that such testing is good science. However, overwhelming evidence proves the BCA wrong; such testing is completely absurd.
The BCA cannot cite any evidence to support its claim. In fact, its scientists concede that a person may have absolutely no alcohol in their blood, yet may still have an alcohol concentration over the legal as measured by Urine. Click here to see the transcript of a lab employee's admission.
Below are nine articles from the most respected scientists in the field; which the BCA continues to ignore.
If you have been charged with a DWI/DUI, contact Chuck Ramsay to protect you, your license and your way of life.
The BCA is not able to cite any learned treatises or peer reviewed articles to support its position.
Id. at 102.
2. N. G. Flanagan et. al., “Further Observations on the Validity of Urine Alcohol Levels in Road Traffic Offences,” Vol. 17, No. 4, Med. Sci. Law (1977).
“It is generally agreed that there is little correlation between blood and urine levels. ... [To be valid] two [urine] samples should be taken within one hour of each other and that the alcohol estimation should be performed on the second sample.”
Id. at 270.
3. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Alcohol in Relation to Highway Safety,” Highway Safety Program Manual, No. 8 (1975).
“Because of various problems in the interpretation of the results of analysis of urine for alcohol which cannot be readily overcome in law enforcement practice, urine analysis to determine equivalent alcohol concentration in blood is discouraged, except under strictly controlled conditions (e.g., hospitalized subject), or for the limited purpose of demonstrating recent ingestion of alcohol. Chemical tests of blood or breath are preferred.”
Id. at IV-5 – 6.
4. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Alcohol in Relation to Highway Safety,” Highway Safety Program Manual, No. 8 (1975).
“Because of various problems in the interpretation of the results of analysis of urine for alcohol which cannot be readily overcome in law enforcement practice, urine analysis to determine equivalent alcohol concentration in blood is discouraged, except under strictly controlled conditions (e.g., hospitalized subject), or for the limited purpose of demonstrating recent ingestion of alcohol. Chemical tests of blood or breath are preferred.”
Id. at IV-5 – 6.
5. Sidney Kaye, “The Collection and Handling of the Blood Alcohol Specimen,” American Journal of Clinical Pathologists, Vol. 74, No. 5 (1980).
“This practice (of using urine testing to measure alcohol concentration) obviously is not proper, even if some state laws permit it. Most forensic medical laboratories today frown upon such a practice because of the wide possible error range.”
Id. at 743.
6. Alfred A. Biasotti et al., “Blood Alcohol Concentration Determined from Urine Samples as a Practical Equivalent or Alternative to Blood and Breath Alcohol Tests,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 30, No.1 (1985).
“Urine is a reliable and accurate alternative to sampling blood for alcohol determination when second “samples” are collected within one hour from voiding. ... Recommendations: (1) A second urine “sample” taken at least 20 minutes to one hour after first voiding the bladder should be used to determine [alcohol concentration].”
Id. at 205-06.
7. Alan W. Jones, “Ethanol distribution Ratios Between Urine and Capillary Blood in Controlled Experiments and in Apprehended Drinking Drivers,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 1 (1992).
“If the individual’s bladder is not completely emptied [before giving a urine sample], batches of “old” urine might have higher concentrations of ethanol than those in the newly formed urine. The measured Urine Alcohol Concentration might, accordingly, be higher than expected from the coexisting Blood Alcohol Concentration at the time of voiding.”
Id. at 31 (emphasis added).
8. Charles L. Winek et al., “The Unreliability of Using a Urine Ethanol Concentration to Predict a Blood Ethanol Concentration,” Forensic Science International, 25 (1984).
“[T]he accuracy of the sample collected would require that the person providing the sample void completely, wait, then provide a urine sample for analysis. Failure of the person to void completely could result in either a higher or lower than actual ethanol concentration...”
Id. at 279-80 (emphasis supplied).
9. Sidney Kaye, “Errors of Converting a Urine Alcohol Value into a Blood Alcohol Level,” The American Journal of Clinical Pathology, Vol. 52, No. 5 (1969).
“In view of the wide ranges in the individual urine-blood alcohol ratios found in most published reports, we find it hard to understand how so many investigators can conclude that it is a satisfactory procedure to calculate the alcoholic content of blood, to the second decimal place, from a selected specimen of urine. Our data clearly confirms what other investigators have claimed: that the relationship between the concentrations of alcohol in urine and in blood may vary widely. This renders [urine testing] unreliable to use ... in medico-legal cases” (emphasis in original).
Id. at 577.
10. A.W. Jones, “Reference Limits for Urine/Blood Ratios of Ethanol in Two Successive Voids from Drinking Drivers,” Journal of Analytical Toxicology, Vol. 26 (2002).
“[A] failure to empty completely the bladder on micturition is another factor that can skew the urine/blood ratio for the second void. The combined influences of many physiological and experimental variables mean that whenever a measured urine concentration is translated into a presumed alcohol concentration, the result obtained is subject to considerable uncertainty.”
Id. at 333.
Charles A. Ramsay
