Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

A Politicized Timeline, and a Lie. But I Repeat Myself. [Updated, with Transcript]

[Update: I got a call this morn­ing from Jim Leit­ner of the DA’s Office. He said that in his inter­view with Amanda Cul­ber­son, recorded by both sides, she said that the power-supply prob­lems would cause the machines not to work, but would not, as far as she knew, cause false results. Mean­while, a lawyer with inti­mate knowl­edge of the BAT vans wrote: “What Oliver and DPS doesn’t have an answer for — and what I think is truly the biggest issue affect­ing test accu­racy — are inter­fer­ent prob­lems the BAT vans were pro­duc­ing on a large scale.” All of this would down­grade “we’ve addressed all of Culberson’s con­cerns” from a lie to a mis­lead­ing truth.]

My BAT Van Time­line.

Pat Lykos’s (on her cam­paign web­site).

What Lykos leaves out of her timeline:

1 March 2011 / 2 March 2011: KTRK-13 reporter Wayne Dol­cefino does a two-part story on BAT vans, which cost the city $600,000 rather than the $250,000 approved in Novem­ber 2007, which have air-conditioning and elec­tri­cal prob­lems that can affect the use­ful­ness of the breath-test machines, and which spend much of their time sit­ting unused—one van didn’t “process” a sin­gle dri­ver in ten months.

4 Octo­ber 2011: Amanda Culberson’s new employer, Lone Star Col­lege, loses its con­tract with Har­ris County, appar­ently at Pat Lykos’s behest. Lawyers sus­pect retal­i­a­tion against Culberson.

18 Octo­ber 2011: The grand jury for the 185th Dis­trict Court kicks pros­e­cu­tors Carl Hobbs, Steve Mor­ris, and John Barn­hill out of the grand jury room and ques­tions a wit­ness, criminal-defense lawyer (and for­mer head of the Har­ris County DA’s vehicular-crimes sec­tion) Brent Mayr with no pros­e­cu­tors present (see State’s Peti­tion for Man­damus).

19 Octo­ber 2011: The 14th Court of Appeals denies Pat Lykos’s peti­tion for man­damus to require a pros­e­cu­tor in the grand jury room and request for emer­gency stay (filed that day).

24 Octo­ber 2011: In an inter­view with Ted Oberg, Pat Lykos says that she’s done trust­ing HPD to tell her the truth about DWI testing.

25 Octo­ber 2011: The grand jury asks for a spe­cial pros­e­cu­tor, and for an exten­sion of its term.

26 Octo­ber 2011: Judge Susan Brown appoints Stephen St. Mar­tin and Jim Mount as spe­cial prosecutors.

27 Octo­ber 2011: The grand jury sub­poe­nas mul­ti­ple cur­rent and for­mer ADAs.

27 Octo­ber 2011: Judge Clin­ton, County Crim­i­nal Court at Law Num­ber Four, rules that the defense can intro­duce a record­ing of Lykos’s inter­view in a DWI case. Judge Susan Brown extends the grand jury’s term until Feb­ru­ary 2012.

Yeah, well I guess that stuff isn’t impor­tant because it won’t help re-elect Pat Lykos (“I felt so strongly about the reli­a­bil­ity of the BAT vans that I got the whistle­blower fired!”?), and that’s what Lykos’s web­site is all about. So why is the same incom­plete record on the DA’s gov­ern­ment web­site? Same rea­son? It doesn’t make the boss look good?

But wait, there’s more.

Lykos’s time­line says:

The Texas Depart­ment of Pub­lic Safety con­ducted an Ambi­ent Tem­per­a­ture Study on the HPD BAT van and intox­i­lyzer instru­ments that addressed the technician’s con­cerns. Sci­en­tists con­cluded that the HPD BAT van instru­ments cor­rectly ana­lyzed breath alco­hol con­cen­tra­tions (click link below for report from DPS out­lin­ing results).

That, the sin­gle most-important claim on Lykos’s time­line, is a lie.

Here’s the report. And here’s the prob­lem: Culberson’s con­cerns with the vans were not lim­ited to, “when it gets too hot the machines might not work right” ambient-temperature prob­lems. Cul­ber­son was also con­cerned about power fluc­tu­a­tions in the vehi­cles’ elec­tri­cal sys­tems: “She also said an elec­tri­cal glitch that was never fixed meant the sophis­ti­cated mea­sur­ing machines would reset every time the van’s air con­di­tioner was turned on” (Hous­ton Chron­i­cle, 28 July 2011). (Dane John­son, the DWI lawyer who con­ducted the hear­ing, was kind enough to share tran­scripts (pdf or zip).).

DPS didn’t test for elec­tri­cal prob­lems; this is not a pid­dling con­cern. One of the reas­sur­ing claims that its report makes is that the machines would pro­duce no results when their sam­ple cham­bers were over­heated because they failed their diag­nos­tic tests “with … all air con­di­tion­ing units in the BAT van turned off.” But DPS was not test­ing for accu­rate results dur­ing power fluc­tu­a­tions, nor was it test­ing whether the diag­nos­tic tests func­tioned when the power fluc­tu­ated. (In fact, given the objec­tives of the study—the Ambi­ent Tem­per­a­ture Study—I would not be sur­prised to learn that they ran an exten­sion cord into the van to oper­ate the machines.)

The Intox­i­lyzer 5000–68 used in the BAT vans runs on “stan­dard AC elec­tri­cal power” (pdf of DPS Breath Alco­hol Test­ing Oper­a­tor Man­ual). It was designed to be used in a police sta­tion, not in a van. It is a del­i­cate instru­ment. How does it han­dle the surges, spikes, brownouts, and noise on the line that you might get using a mobile gen­er­a­tor (or a van alter­na­tor) with a power inverter?

Some­times, accord­ing to the Chronicle’s account of Culberson’s tes­ti­mony, it resets.

Does it some­times instead give false results? We still don’t know.
 

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

9 Responses to “A Politicized Timeline, and a Lie. But I Repeat Myself. [Updated, with Transcript]”

  1. Rick Davis says:

    That’s not a report. There’s no data.
    I can’t believe this is the state of the art at the DPS. It reads like some­thing I’ve seen from a sec­ond rate Chi­nese supplier.

  2. Kris Howcroft says:

    BTW, when I try to fol­low your link to the Lycos cam­paign web­site, I get the ironic mes­sage: “You cant do that right now because you have insuf­fi­cient rights.” I hope for her sake she’s been hacked.

  3. Kiatta says:

    Here is the state­ment on the Lykos site you ref­er­ence above.

    You cant do that right now because you have insuf­fi­cient rights. ”

    Is that a pol­icy statement?

  4. Alex Bunin says:

    Even worse, where did the apos­tro­phe go?

  5. Robb Fickman says:

    Judge Dis­trict Attor­ney Lykos is a pretty typ­i­cal politician:

    1. First, like most politi­cians, she thinks she has saved us from some hor­ri­ble fate. In her case she thinks she has restored the integrity of the DA’s Office. This, of course is laugh­able. You can­not restore integrity through dis­hon­est means.

    2. Sec­ond, like most politi­cians, she seems to think that the fate of West­ern Cov­i­liza­tion hinges on her reelec­tion. Unless she is reelected all progress toward ” order” will be lost.

    3. Finally, like most politi­cians, she and her cohorts have adopted the ” ends jus­tify the means” credo. So what if they have to mas­sage the truth, her re-election is what’s crit­i­cal. That seems to be the message.

    The politician’s cyn­i­cal reliance on voter apa­thy, con­fus­sion and stu­pid­ity is alive and well in the Lykosian Camp. Keep expos­ing the truth Mark.

    Even­tu­ally the truth wins.

    Robb Fick­man

  6. Rick Davis says:

    A stan­dard method for eval­u­a­tion of mea­sur­ing instru­ments or test meth­ods is the ANOVA gauge R&R (repeata­bil­ity and repro­ducibil­ity).
    ANOVA gauge R&R mea­sures the amount of vari­abil­ity induced in mea­sure­ments by the mea­sure­ment sys­tem itself, and com­pares it to the total vari­abil­ity observed to deter­mine the via­bil­ity of the mea­sure­ment sys­tem.” (wiki).

    It’s impor­tant that these R$R stud­ies are con­ducted in the envi­ron­ment in which the gauge is used. If DPS was seri­ous about prov­ing the via­bil­ity of these instru­ments in the BAT van envi­ron­ment they would have con­ducted a sim­i­lar test.

    How­ever, I’d wager that these intox­oliz­ers will not pro­vide stan­dard indus­try accept­able R&R results in a controlled,room tem­per­a­ture, envi­ron­ment. I believe this is why the DPS stoops to the level of suit­abil­ity by decree. The envi­ron­ment is suit­able because our Cer­ti­fied Tech­ni­cian decrees it suit­able defense.

  7. […] Dis­trict Attorney’s web­site.  As most of you know, crim­i­nal defense lawyer Mark Ben­nett has a few addi­tions to that time­line. She was emphatic in stat­ing that the March report by ABC 13’s Wayne Dol­cefino was about […]

Leave a non-anonymous Reply