National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) DESK BOOK

PART FIVE

Alcohol and Drugs

Alcohol and Drug Impaired Driving

Alcohol and drugs are part of virtually every culture worldwide. These cultures have evolved
over hundreds, even thousands, of years. With the use of these potentially mind-altering
substances comes also abuse. Modern societies are mobile societies, and automotive travel is the
principle means of movement. For those empowered to ensure safety on the highways, there is
an irrecon-cilable conflict between substance abuse and safe driving.

The cost of this conflict is high, and its greatest impact is, perhaps, on future societies. NHTSA
reports that drunken driving crashes are a leading cause of death among young people in the
United States. Between 1982 and 1993, 266,291 deaths in this country were alcohol-related—
one fatality every 30 minutes. Alcohol-related crashes cost Americans 46 billion dollars a year.
Similar statistics on the effect of drugs on driving are difficult to find. Many drug-impaired
drivers are never detected or, when detected, are arrested as alcohol-impaired only. If involved in
crashes, they are not chemically tested for drugs other than alcohol. Conservative estimates
suggest that thousands die and tens of thousands are injured annually as a result of drug-impaired
driving. In a 1988 study by the University of Tennessee Medical Center that analyzed urine
samples of crash-injured drivers, drugs other than alcohol were detected in 40 percent of the
samples.

Many drug users routinely abuse more than one drug simultaneously. This practice, known as
“poly-drug use” may be more common than single drug use in certain settings. Many drug
abusers drink alcohol to disguise their use of drugs. In a study of drugged driving arrests by the
Los Angeles Police Department, 47 percent had consumed alcohol and some other drug. Poly-
drug use can produce a synergistic impairment of the user's ability to drive. This condition is
particularly deadly and is prevalent among younger drivers. A study of 440 drivers, ages 15 to 34
years old, who were killed in California during a two-year period detected alcohol and marijuana
in one-third of the victims. More than half had consumed a drug or drugs other than alcohol.

To reduce the highway mortality rate from alcohol and drug impairment requires altering
culturally rooted behaviors. Behavior-al change may best be accomplished through ongoing
programs of vigorous enforcement, coupled with ambitious education and information activities.
Thus, there is a broad range of issues involved with alcohol and drug enforcement on the
highway. Effective DWI Statutes.

The effectiveness of a DWI statute is measured by its ability to deter impaired driving. The
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO) provides a standard
in its Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) by which each jurisdiction may measure its own statutes.
Five essential components are identified in the Uniform Vehicle Code's model DWI statute:
emphasis on driving ability, statutory blood alcohol concentration limits, compulsory chemical
testing, significant punishment upon conviction, and administrative license suspension.

While substances affect different individuals in differing degrees, laws should emphasize the
impairment of the driver—not the type, legal or illegal, or even the amount of the substance
ingested. The effects of alcohol consumption are well known. Although they vary with the
individuals consuming it, all persons are thought to be impaired by alcohol when its
concentration in the blood (BAC) reaches 0.08 percent. Statutes should provide that presumptive
evidence, per se, exists to suggest that a driver's ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired
when his BAC exceeds 0.08 percent.

The law should require all drivers to submit to a chemical test, or tests, at the option of the
arresting officer, to determine the level of alcohol and/or drugs in their blood, as a condition of
holding a driver's license. Consent to a chemical test should also be implied when a driver is
incapacitated or killed while driving a motor vehicle.

In order to deter impaired driving, the penalty must be sufficient to outweigh the relatively low
risk of apprehension. This punish-ment should include a substantial fine, imprisonment for repeat
offenders, and a lengthy license revocation with no provision for “drive to work” licenses or
similar provisions that water down the effect of the license revocation. Research by social
scientists has indicated that license revocation is the most effective deterrent to drunken driving.

In addition to motor vehicle license revocations through the court system, the process can be
speeded up through an administrative license revocation (ALR) law where the police officer is
empow-ered to seize the license of any person who refuses to submit to a chemical test or who
tests above the legal limit. The person is issued a temporary license valid for not more than 30
days. The motor vehicle licensing agency holds an administrative hearing and imposes a license
revocation if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person was driving with a BAC
in excess of the legal limit or refused to submit to a chemical test. Many ALR statutes also
provide for license revocation for any person under the age of 21 driving with any measurable or
detectable amount of alcohol, which the Uniform Motor Vehicle Code defines as a BAC of 0.02
or greater. Other organizations and authorities recommend the more literal definition of 0.00,
because the drinking age is now 21 years in nearly all states, and this age group largely
represents novice drivers.

Alcohol and the Commercial Driver

The National Transportation Safety Board studied alcohol and drug involvement in heavy truck
accidents in which the drivers were killed; 33 percent of the victims tested positive for drug
abuse. These drivers had consumed alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, over-the-counter stimulants,
opiates, PCP, or a combination. In addition to DWI, the study indicated that these drivers were
also more likely to violate other laws. They were more likely to have prior alcohol or drug
histories, were more likely to violate federal hours of service regulations, and more likely to
drive with suspended or revoked licenses. The U.S. Department of Transportation responded to
the dangers posed by DWI in commercial vehicles through changes in the uniform Commercial
Driver License (CDL) requirements in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 49 CFR
prohibits commer-cial operation with a BAC of 0.04 or greater. Regulations prohibit driving
within four hours of consumption of any alcoholic beverage. DOT has instituted a mandatory
drug testing program among motor carriers, who are required to randomly drug test 50 percent of
the average number of interstate operators each year. All 50 states have incorporated the federal
regulations into their state motor vehicle laws, thereby making them enforceable by authorized
law enforcement officials at the state level.

Specialized DWI Enforcement Strategies

Enhanced DWI patrol is a general term for a variety of strategies and techniques that dedicate
manpower for DWI enforcement. This includes roving DWI patrols and saturation patrols in a
targeted geographical patrol area. The target areas are identified by a high incidence of DWI or
DWI accident rates. Often, saturation patrols are coordinated with several agencies and
jurisdictions to multiply their effectiveness and to share resources. This is particularly effective
where booking procedures can be consolidated, or if a particular agency possesses specialized
equipment such as a Breath Alcohol Test (BAT) Mobile. BAT Mobiles are motor homes
outfitted with breath testing instruments and serve as mobile police stations. They can be brought
to the scene in rural areas or stationed on-site at sobriety checkpoints.

The sobriety checkpoint is a highly visible enforcement mechanism. All motorists approaching a
designated area of highway are stopped and briefly investigated for signs of intoxication. Its
purpose is to maximize deterrence, by increasing the risk percep-tion of motorists who drive
while impaired by alcohol or drugs. Evidence suggests that sobriety checkpoints can reduce the
number of alcohol-related accidents.

The legality of these checkpoints has been challenged in the courts on the grounds they violate
the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal search and seizure. The U.S. Supreme Court
upheld their constitutionality in 1990 in the case of Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not forbid the initial stop and brief
detention, without individualized suspicion, of all motorists passing through a highway
checkpoint established to detect and deter drunk driving, conducted in conformity with
guidelines on operation, site selection, and publicity. Despite the federal ruling, certain states
have since enacted legislation or interpreted their state constitutions in such a manner as to forbid
these checkpoints.

NHTSA and the IACP Highway Safety Advisory Committee have published operational
guidelines that police administrators should consider in order to ensure that sobriety checkpoints
are legal, effective, and safe. These guidelines stress that checkpoints should be part of an
ongoing program to deter impaired driving, should have judicial support, and should conform to
department policy. The location should be pre-selected by management based on statistics, and
there should be special warning devices, visible police authority, chemical testing logistics,
contingency planning, effective detection and investigation techniques, operational brief-ings,
comprehensive public information and public education efforts, and post-incident critiques based
on data collection and evaluation.
Standardized Field Sobriety Testing

The Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) is a battery of three tests administered and
evaluated in a standardized manner to obtain validated indicators of impairment and establish
probable cause for arrest. These tests were developed as a result of research sponsored by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and conducted by the Southern
California Research Institute. A formal program of training was developed and is available
through NHTSA to help police officers become more skillful at detecting DWI suspects,
describing the behavior of these suspects, and presenting effective testimony in court. Formal
administration and accreditation of the program is provided through IACP. The three tests of the
SFST are:

 the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN)

 the walk-and-turn
 the one-leg stand.

These tests are administered systematically and are evaluated according to measured responses
of the suspect.

HGN Testing
Horizontal gaze nystagmus is an involuntary jerking of the eyeball which occurs naturally as the
eyes gaze to the side. Under normal circumstances, nystagmus occurs when the eyes are rotated
at high peripheral angles. However, when a person is impaired by alcohol, nystagmus is
exaggerated and may occur at lesser angles. An alcohol-impaired person will also often have
difficulty smoothly tracking a moving object. In the HGN test, the officer observes the eyes of a
suspect as the suspect follows a slowly moving object such as a pen or small flashlight,
horizontally with his eyes. The examiner looks for three indicators of impairment in each eye: if
the eye cannot follow a moving object smoothly, if jerking is distinct when the eye is at
maximum deviation, and if the angle of onset of jerking is within 45 degrees of center. If,
between the two eyes, four or more clues appear, the suspect likely has a BAC of 0.10 or greater.
NHTSA research indicates that this test allows proper classification of approximately 77 percent
of suspects. HGN may also indicate consumption of seizure medications, phencyclidine, a
variety of inhalants, barbiturates, and other depressants.

Divided Attention Testing

The walk-and-turn test and one-leg stand test are “divided attention” tests that are easily
performed by most sober people. They require a suspect to listen to and follow instructions while
performing simple physical movements. Impaired persons have difficulty with tasks requiring
their attention to be divided between simple mental and physical exercises.

In the walk-and-turn test, the subject is directed to take nine steps, heel-to-toe, along a straight
line. After taking the steps, the suspect must turn on one foot and return in the same manner in
the opposite direction. The examiner looks for seven indicators of impairment: if the suspect
cannot keep balance while listening to the instructions, begins before the instructions are
finished, stops while walking to regain balance, does not touch heel-to-toe, uses arms to balance,
loses balance while turning, or takes an incorrect number of steps. NHTSA research indicates
that 68 percent of individuals who exhibit two or more indicators in the performance of the test
will have a BAC of 0.10 or greater. In the one-leg stand test, the suspect is instructed to stand
with one foot approximately six inches off the ground and count aloud by thousands (One
thousand-one, one thousand-two, etc.) until told to put the foot down. The officer times the
subject for a 30 seconds. The officer looks for four indicators of impairment, including swaying
while balancing, using arms to balance, hopping to maintain balance, and putting the foot down.
NHTSA research indicates that 65 percent of individuals who exhibit two or more such
indicators in the performance of the test will have a BAC of 0.10 of greater. The effectiveness of
SFST in court testimony and evidence depends upon the cumulative total of impairment
indicators provided by the three-test battery. The greater the number of indicators, the more
convincing the testimony. Because SFST is administered according to national standards and is
supported by significant research, it has greater credibility than mere subjective testimony.

Alternative Testing Methods

Sometimes, an officer will encounter a disabled driver who cannot perform the SFST. In such
cases, some other battery of tests such as counting aloud, reciting the alphabet, or finger dexterity
tests may be administered. Several appellate court decisions have indicated that, if you
administer a test that requires the subject to respond orally in other than a routine information-
giving fashion, such as requiring them to indicate the date of their sixth birthday, and if they are
in custody at the time, you should administer the Miranda warning first, because you are seeking
information from them that is testimonial or communicative in nature.

Roadside Checkpoints

Roadside checkpoints provide law enforcement personnel with a ready means to monitor and
check drivers' licenses, vehicle regis-trations, vehicle equipment, and the public vehicle
identification numbers (PVINs) mounted on the dashboards of vehicles and readily visible
through the windshield. Because some courts and licensing authorities now issue restricted
licenses to offenders, roadside checks allow officers to monitor compliance with court-ordered
and statutory restrictions. Law enforcement personnel can contact increased numbers of vehicle
operators without first having to make traffic stops. Roadside checkpoints also enable officers to
conduct vehicle registration inquiries and detect uninspected or unsafe vehicles. A primary tool
used by drug couriers to transport illegal drugs is a vehicle registered to someone other than the
operator, such as a leased vehicle. Vehicle registration checks often thwart attempts to transport
significant quantities of illegal narcotics and cash. The roadside checkpoint also affords us a
means to quickly review vehicle safety equipment and ensure compliance with special
equipment. An officer can determine compliance with regulations pertaining to tires, exhaust,
safety belts, mirrors, glass, lights, and related equipment. Vehicles not in compliance can be
removed from the roadways or issued citations or defective equipment repair orders.

Site selection is an important aspect of roadside checkpoints. Sites should be selected for their
ability to provide for the safety of the public and the police. A safe site requires adequate
visibility for approaching motorists, and ample space to park police and violators' vehicles
without blocking driveways to nearby residences or business establishments. Further
examination of a vehicle may be necessary, and allowing it to remain in the roadway can
constitute a traffic hazard. Sites should also be assessed for daylight and night operations, taking
into consideration the previous factors.

DWI Sobriety Checkpoints

DWI sobriety checkpoints are a special form of roadside safety checks. While some states have
ruled such checkpoints illegal under their state constitutions, the majority and the U.S. Supreme
Court have found checkpoints to be legal when conducted in a manner minimally intrusive on
the rights of the traveling public.

Site Operations

Generally, roadside sobriety checkpoint locations should be determined by law enforcement

commanders or first-line super-visors, rather than being selected on an ad hoc basis by the line
officers who conduct them. To deter drinking drivers, advance publicity of a checkpoint is
advisable. Warning signs should also be placed along the highway to notify motorists in advance,
and adequate lighting should enable the motorist to quickly spot the checkpoint and react. The
warning devices on vehicles and reflec-torized equipment worn by officers should be deployed.
Be sure that oncoming motorists are not blinded by the lights of police cruisers or other stopped
vehicles. Provide ample room and a safe location to pull vehicles over, by officers in full uniform
and readily identifiable. Briefly greet each motorist and explain the purpose of the stop. After a
brief conver-sation and, perhaps, a check of the driver's license, registration, inspection sticker,
and equipment, determine whether or not the driver appears to be impaired. If not, quickly wave
the motorist on his way. Motorists selected for further investigation on the basis of articulable
suspicion should be pulled off the road in a location where additional inquiry can be conducted.

If articulable suspicion of DUI exists, a PBT (preliminary breath testing) device can be
employed. Some PBT devices are so sophisticated that they no longer require the motorist to
blow into them, but operate as “sniffers” to check for the presence of volatile substances when
passed in front of the driver's nose and mouth. If alcohol or controlled substances are detected
and the driver appears impaired, administer a field sobriety test, and place the driver under arrest,
to be transported to a breath testing site, or a “Batmobile” (a portable breath tester set up in a
police van).

When stopping vehicles for roadside checks, devise a system that prohibits the constitutionally
impermissible random stopping of vehicles and complies with the provisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Delaware v. Prouse. This case can be complied with by either
stopping every vehicle, so that each driver has an equal chance of being stopped, or by stopping
of every tenth or every twentieth vehicle so that the officer does not exercise individual
discretion in deciding which vehicle is to be stopped, and all cars have an equal chance of being
selected. Compliance with these suggestions will result in a constitutionally permissible roadside
inspection procedure in most jurisdictions.

Highway Drug Interdiction

Highway drug interdiction is a strategy to intercept the flow of illegal drugs and related currency
during transport along public highways. Interdiction includes procedures as routine as observing
the interiors of vehicles stopped for traffic violations and as deliberate as developing
psychological profiles of suspects, behav-iors, and vehicles. Federal law provides for the seizure
and civil forfeiture of any assets, including vehicles connected to illegal drug trafficking.

Operation Pipeline/Convoy

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the coordi-nating agency for highway drug
interdiction activities. They administer Operation Pipeline/Convoy, which provides training,
accumulates seizure data, and provides information to interested law enforcement agencies
throughout the United States. Operation Pipeline began in 1983 as a joint effort between the New
Mexico State Police and the New Jersey State Police. The program continually expanded and
now Operation Convoy has been developed to target tractor-trailer transport of drugs. Operation
Pipeline/Convoy encourages a coordinated response from law enforcement agencies at all levels
to deter the flow of drugs within the continental United States.

The EPIC Data Base

The DEA's El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) maintains a data-base called State Operation
Pipeline Seizures (STOPS). It provides 5-1-14 easy access to information relating to date,
location, highway, vehicle, occupants, destination, concealment methods, and firearms
encountered in seizure incidents. Operation Pipeline reports significant seizures of drugs and
currency to law enforcement agencies through weekly teletype messages. An intelligence
database, Zones of Drug Intelligence Activity (ZODIAC), shares intelligence information
relating to transportation of drugs and related currency. EPIC is accessible 24 hours a day for
database inquiries about persons or vehicles that have been involved in seizures or arrests.

Training Availability

Operation Pipeline/Convoy provides training to state and local law enforcement agencies upon
request, through dedicated DEA funding. This training is provided by DEA agents and the U.S.
Department of Transportation at locations provided by the state or local agency. The program
also produces a variety of printed reference materials for law enforcement agencies, and DEA,
DOT, and EPIC annually host a commercial vehicle drug interdiction networking conference to
promote interagency cooperation and share information. For information regarding any DEA-
sponsored program, contact your nearest DEA office.

Drug Recognition Experts

Often the behavior of suspects is abnormal for alcohol impairment alone, or field or breath tests
indicate that the suspect's BAC is lower than the level of impairment suggests. Either of these
observations is common when encountering poly-drug users. Most jurisdictions have laws that
prohibit DWI by alcohol, drugs, or a combination.
Drug recognition experts (DREs) are officers who have been specifically trained to recognize the
effects of drug impairment. The DRE examines such suspects and makes trained observations to
determine whether to request a blood or urine test, and to guide the laboratory technician toward
general categories of drugs to look for in analysis of the sample. The DRE's examination also
provides evidence of observable drug effects to help confirm the lab analysis. Recognizing Drug
“Signatures”.

DREs are trained to recognize distinguishable “signatures” of certain categories of drugs,

identified through five observations by the DRE: vital signs (pulse, temperature, and blood
pressure); psychophysical responses (coordination of mind and body); signs of administration of
drugs (such as injection sites); eye responses (horizontal and vertical gaze nystagmus, eye
convergence, and pupil size under varying light intensities); and physical and behavioral
characteristics (such as muscle rigidity or flaccidity, hyperactivity).

A DREs observations cannot substitute for the chemical test or lab analysis. Only such analysis
by qualified forensic chemists can accurately identify or quantify a particular drug. This analysis
is an important step in the acquisition of gathering evidence in drug-related cases.

History of the DRE Concept

The DRE concept was designed and tested by members of the Los Angeles Police Department in
the 1970s, and has been practiced in that department and many others since 1982. Reliability and
validity studies were conducted by the Johns Hopkins University Medical Center. The DRE
techniques have been recognized by NHTSA since 1984, and the IACP Highway Safety
Advisory Committee developed and has administered national standards for training and
certification of DREs since 1989. At this writing, more than 3,000 trained DREs work in more
than 100 programs in nearly half the states.

NHTSA Prerequisites

NHTSA has individual, departmental, and jurisdictional prerequi-sites for training of DREs. The
trainees should already be proficient in using standardized field sobriety testing techniques and
should demonstrate a commitment to DWI and drug enforce-ment. The sponsoring agency
should make an ongoing commit-ment to deterring impaired driving and provide the command
support to allow the DRE to function at maximum effectiveness. Finally, the jurisdiction where
the DRE will operate must have a legal and political framework consistent with effective
enforcement of drug-impaired driving violations.

NHTSA has also established specific prerequisites as part of its DRE training curriculum. The
student must be employed or under the direct control of a public criminal justice agency or an
institution involved in providing training services to officers of law enforcement agencies. He
must achieve the learning objectives of a two-day pre-school, demonstrate proficiency in the use
of the SFST, possess good communication skills or a demonstrated ability to testify in court, and
be willing to serve as a DRE upon completion of the training. The department must have an
active drug enforcement and DWI enforcement program; be proactive in training officers in
SFST consistent with IACP guidelines; maintain records of individual officers' SFST activities;
have access to adequate chemical testing resources, adequate facilities, and equipment to support
the drug evaluation and classification examinations; maintain a management information system
capable of accurately tracking alcohol and drug enforcement activities; and have the firm support
and commitment of the chief law enforcement officer and other appropriate officials.

The state or community must have laws that permit analyses of chemical samples obtained from
persons suspected of impaired driving; allow the arresting officer to specify the type of test or
tests to be given to suspected impaired drivers (blood, breath, or urine); and specifically provide
testing for drugs other than alcohol. Local prosecutors must demonstrate a willingness to intro-
duce SFST evidence in DWI cases and to participate in the training to become familiar with drug
evaluation and classification procedures. Local judges must demonstrate willingness to accept
SFST evidence in court and to consider DRE evidence in alcohol and drug cases. Finally, the
political leadership of the jurisdiction should express support for the DRE program.

DRE Training and Certification Process

Once the prerequisites have been met, DRE training is a three-step process. Phase I is a two-day
orientation to the techniques and procedures for evaluating drug-impaired suspects. Phase II is
seven days of instruction in drug evaluation, physiology, effects of drugs, and legal
considerations. At its conclusion, students are required to pass a written exam. Phase III consists
of supervised field training and working with actual drug-impaired suspects. After a student has
competently performed a minimum of 12 suspect evaluations identifying three of the seven
different drug categories, he must complete a comprehensive written examination before
obtaining IACP certification. Certified DREs must renew their certification every two years.
Recertification requires each DRE to perform a minimum of four acceptable evaluations since
the date of the last certification, successfully complete eight hours of IACP-approved
recertification training, and submit updated documentation of DRE activity. A DRE will be
decertified if he fails to maintain standards and certification requirements, or demonstrates
substantial unethical or unprofessional behavior.

DWI Breath Testing Instruments

NHTSA annually publishes a list of breath testing instruments rigorously examined for accuracy
and approved by NHTSA for their ability to accurately determine breath alcohol concentration,
and thus blood alcohol concentration. The department of health or other appropriate agency in
each state reviews the NHTSA list and test results, and issues a list of devices approved for use
by law enforcement agencies in that particular state.

Captured Samples

Exhaled air can be categorized into essentially three types of samples: tidal breath air, reserve
breath air, and alveolar breath air. Tidal breath air is air exhaled in the course of normal breath-
ing. It is the most shallow of the three types. Reserve breath air is exhaled when the body is
exerted. It is produced through deeper breathing than tidal breath air, but great volumes of air are
both inhaled and exhaled with little residence in the lung. Alveolar breath air is deep lung air.
Since breath testing instruments are intended to measure indirectly the concentration of alcohol
in the blood, it is essential for accuracy that the breath sample captured by the instrument for
analysis be representative of the air in the alveoli of the lung, because it is in the alveoli that the
2100:1 equilibrium ratio between alcohol in the breath and alcohol in the blood occurs.

Infrared Instruments

Infrared breath measuring instruments operate on the principle that each chemical compound has
unique infrared energy absorption characteristics. Ethyl alcohol absorbs energy in the 3.42
micron region of the infrared spectrum. The amount of alcohol contained in a sample can be
calculated by observing energy loss when a known energy is applied to the sample. In the
infrared devices, infrared energy is projected through a breath sample. A photo-detector
identifies a decrease in wave amplitude caused by the absorption of energy by the alcohol. The
amount of energy absorbed is equal to the breath alcohol concentration. The greater the alcohol
concentration, the lower the wave amplitude. A computer on the instrument determines the
breath alcohol content based upon the amount of energy loss, and then applies the 2100:1
conversion ratio to provide a digital readout of the suspect's blood alcohol content.

Because infrared instruments are based upon infrared absorption spectra, which are chemically
unique, they cannot be influenced by compound such as acetone, which may have some chemical
characteristics in common with ethyl alcohol. In fact, some infrared instruments also provide
data on the concentrations of other compounds contained in the breath sample as well as that of
alcohol.

Wet Chemical Instruments

When infrared instruments are not used, law enforcement generally uses wet chemical
instruments, which operate on the basis of color changes produced through the chemical reaction
of ethyl alcohol with chromate salts. These devices obtain a measured volume of alveolar breath
and pass that sample through a known volume and concentration of a solution of chromate salt
and acid. Chromate salt is yellow. As it reacts with the alcohol in the breath sample, it is
chemically altered, resulting in a lighter color. The higher the alcohol concentration, the greater
the color change.

A wet chemical instrument measures the difference between the light transmittance of a standard
chromate\acid solution and the light transmittance of a sample solution. The difference in
transmittance measured is directly proportional to the amount of alcohol in the breath sample.

Preliminary Breath Testing Instruments

PBT instruments are portable instruments for the purpose of BAC screening as part of the pre-
arrest field testing. The suspect driver blows for several seconds through a plastic or glass tube,
and the PBT provides an instantaneous determination of blood alcohol content.

In most jurisdictions, the legal basis for the use of these instruments is contained in the implied
consent laws. While results of a PBT generally are not admissible as evidence of DWI, they do
provide officers with additional objective information to establish probable cause for arrest and
further chemical testing. They also help to detect persons who may be suffering from an illness
or injury such as diabetes or head injury and are in need of chemical treatment, but would
otherwise be mistaken for an intoxicated person. There are essentially three types of PBTs:
electro-chemical, semi-conductor, and disposable chemical.

In electro-chemical PBTs, alcohol in the breath is absorbed into a fuel cell where it is oxidized,
producing electrical current. The higher the alcohol content of the breath, the greater the current
output of the fuel cell. By measuring the current produced, the instrument determines the breath
alcohol content, and the BAC conversion is displayed with the aid of a computer chip. In semi-
conductor PBTs, alcohol increases the electrical output of the semi-conductor. By measuring the
voltage output, the breath alcohol content can be determined and the BAC conversion is
displayed.

Disposable chemical PBTs are glass or plastic tubes containing a measured amount of the
chemical, which is reactive with alcohol. As the suspect exhales through the tube, alcohol
contained in the breath reacts with the chemical contained within. The greater the breath alcohol
content, the greater the chemical reaction observed.

Non-Invasive or Passive Alcohol Sensors

Passive alcohol sensors (PAS) are instruments that detect the presence of alcohol in normally
expelled breath. They require no cooperation from the driver. During the roadside interview of
the driver and examination of documents, the officer places the PAS within six inches of the
driver's mouth. It contains a small fan which samples the ambient air for examination. An
electro-chemical mechanism analyzes the air for the presence of alcohol. Some instruments are
concealed within a flashlight and can be used as a passive or active detector. NHTSA studies
indicate these devices are effective during sobriety checkpoints when the decision whether or not
to continue breath testing must be made quickly.