More Than 100 Drunk-Driving Cases Challenged

Challenging the integrity of drunk-driving tests handled by the Sheriff’s Department crime lab, whose state license has been in dispute, defense attorneys from across Ventura County filed more than 100 motions Wednesday seeking dismissal of charges.

As of last week, only two lawyers had filed papers challenging drunk-driving cases in which alcohol breath tests were supervised by the crime lab, although others had indicated plans to file similar motions.

But by late afternoon Wednesday, 91 motions had been filed and a stack of at least 20 more were piled on the desk of court clerk Julie Camacho in preparation for a hearing today before Superior Court Judge Steven Z. Perren.

“Probably in the morning we will be getting another big stack,� Camacho said shortly before 5 p.m. as she entered the cases into her computer.

The stacks did not include the hundreds of additional cases that are expected to be challenged by the public defender’s office.

“It’s just physically impossible for me to write and file motions on behalf of every client,� Deputy Public Defender Brian Vogel said Wednesday as he handed the clerk about 15 initial motions.

The paperwork is complicated, Vogel explained, because the cases are in various legal stages and deal with different issues depending on whether they involved breath, urine or blood tests for alcohol level.

“The review process is ongoing,� Vogel said. “We are still contacting our clients and letting them know what happened.�

Almost all of the motions seek the dismissal of drunk-driving charges filed between November and March, or request changes in pleas entered during that time.

Attorneys say about 95% of motorists arrested for driving under the influence plead guilty.

In the motions, defense attorneys argue that the crime lab did not have the authority to oversee alcohol breath tests and later defied a state health department order by continuing to do so.

They also claim that prosecutors withheld information about the lab and are seeking a court order requiring that they turn it over.

Prosecutors argue that the crime lab never lost its license, contrary to earlier statements by law enforcement officials. And they say the alcohol tests conducted at the lab are valid.

The dispute landed on Perren’s desk last week, and he told attorneys to file briefs detailing their positions by Wednesday.

One motion filed this week by a man arrested for driving under the influence in March typifies the arguments being made. He submitted to a breath test, which reported a blood-alcohol level at or above 0.08%, the legal limit for driving.

“If I had been informed that the crime lab that maintained the Breathalyzer machine was not licensed or qualified to do so,� he says in the motion, “I would have selected either a blood or urine test.�

But defense attorneys are not limiting their criticism of the crime lab to breath tests. They also question the validity of blood and urine tests taken by the lab, and want a full disclosure of what happened at the lab during the last six months.

“There is a lot of stuff that has not been fully revealed,� Vogel said. “How many innocent .08s and .09s have been convicted on faulty evidence? How many breath tests have been inaccurately calibrated? Have they preserved the evidence to go back and prove that things were done properly? These are all issues to be determined.�

The licensing problem started last November when the crime lab’s forensic alcohol supervisor, Norm Fort, retired. Under state law, the department had 90 days to replace Fort with another qualified supervisor.

But the county failed to meet the March 19 deadline, officials said. About two weeks passed before the state took over urine and blood testing at its Santa Barbara lab.

Meanwhile, the Ventura County lab continued to oversee breath tests for suspected drunk drivers.

Defense attorneys argue that this was contrary to a state order. But prosecutors say the crime lab was told only that it “should� not perform breath tests--not that it must not.