Urine Testing in Minnesota DWI Cases is Scientifically Invalid
Urine Testing is unreliable, banned in most states.
Collecting a targeted driver’s urine for use as evidence in a DWI prosecution is banned in most states in the United States – and for good reason. Minnesota is still in the dark ages of using urine sampling for alcohol-related driving cases.
Not only that, Minnesota has its law enforcement officers (“LEOs”) collect samples in a scientifically invalid way. Most states that still use urine evidence, despite its serious flaws, at least require the sample to be a “second void” in order to avoid the huge problem of “urine pooling.”
What is the urine “pooling” problem? No, it’s not a reference to kids and swimming pools. An illustration will help explain. Imagine a person drinks five alcohol beverages over a several hours, then stops consuming alcohol for a few hours before driving. That’s what we want people to do, right? Well, imagine he is stopped for expired tabs by a police officer, who then smells the odor of an alcoholic beverage. A urine sample is obtained, a “first void.” Even though the person would by then get a blood test result of below 0.04 BAC, the urine test shows 0.08. How could it be? The answer is that if the person did not urinate during this entire period, most of the alcohol she consumed would still be in her urine.
Yet the way the laws in Minnesota are written, it may be irrelevant that her blood alcohol level was 0.04, if her urine alcohol level was 0.08, just as it is legally irrelevant that her driving ability was not impaired. Welcome to DWI enforcement and prosecution in Minnesota.
Have Truth, Liberty and Justice been sacrificed upon the altar of law-enforcement expediency?
A targeted-person needs serious legal expertise, like that of DWI Defense Attorney Thomas Gallagher, on his or her side to fight back against this unfair, unjust web of laws and scientifically flawed evidence.