drager 7410 manual
LINK 1 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
LINK 2 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
File Name:drager 7410 manual.pdf
Size: 1591 KB
Type: PDF, ePub, eBook
Category: Book
Uploaded: 12 May 2019, 16:43 PM
Rating: 4.6/5 from 597 votes.
Status: AVAILABLE
Last checked: 12 Minutes ago!
In order to read or download drager 7410 manual ebook, you need to create a FREE account.
eBook includes PDF, ePub and Kindle version
✔ Register a free 1 month Trial Account.
✔ Download as many books as you like (Personal use)
✔ Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied.
✔ Join Over 80000 Happy Readers
drager 7410 manualSymbole bedeuten: Achtung. Drager Alcotest 5510 (Formerly 6510). Sophisticated technology.Reload to refresh your session. Reload to refresh your session. Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers. Start Free Trial Cancel anytime. Report this Document Save Save Manual Alcotest Drager For Later 0 ratings 0 found this document useful (0 votes) 65 views 23 pages Manual Alcotest Drager Uploaded by Gervy Ger Description: Manual para prueba de alcotest Full description Save Save Manual Alcotest Drager For Later 0 0 found this document useful, Mark this document as useful 0 0 found this document not useful, Mark this document as not useful Embed Share Jump to Page You are on page 1 of 23 Search inside document Browse Books Site Directory Site Language: English Change Language English Change Language. LynneJeane joined 1 hour ago. Alcodigital 3000 Breathalyzer, Drager 3000 Breath Tester, Drager 3000, AlcoDigital 3000 Breathalyser. Instructions for Use - Drger Alcotest Do not connect electrical instruments not mentioned in this manual before having contacted Drger Safety AG u0026 Co. KGaA or an. A description of several popular alcohol breathalyzers being sold, with pricing. Semiconductor breathalyzers are compared with fuel-cell breathalizers. Data respecting Alcotest 7410.LynneJeane joined 1 hour ago. Alcodigital 3000 Breathalyzer, Drager 3000 Breath Tester, Drager 3000, AlcoDigital 3000 Breathalyser. Instructions for Use - Drger Alcotest Do not connect electrical instruments not mentioned in this manual before having contacted Drger Safety AG u0026 Co. KGaA or an. A description of several popular alcohol breathalyzers being sold, with pricing. Semiconductor breathalyzers are compared with fuel-cell breathalizers. Data respecting Alcotest 7410. Check your breathalyser’s user manual if you’re not sure, or contact us for help. Calibrations are carried out in-house at our workshop in Sussex using wet bath simulators.http://www.industra.sk/userfiles/carl-lewis-ex30a-manual.xml
- Tags:
- drager 7410 manual, drager 7410 user manual, drager alcotest 7410 manual, drager alcotest 7410 plus manual, drager alcotest 7410 manual pdf, drager alcotest 7410 printer manual, drager 7410 manual, drager 7410 manual pdf, drager 7410 manual download, drager 7410 manual instructions, drager 7410 manual free.
Once you have completed checkout, print a copy of your invoice and package your breathalyser up carefully (we’d suggest some bubble wrap and a padded envelope at a minimum; if you have the original packaging, better still). Include the invoice inside the package and make sure you clearly mark the outside of the packing with your return name and address. Please note, the office does not open before 9am. We have a few options for you to choose from, depending on how quickly you need your breathalyser back. Select one of these options at checkout: Our standard breathalyser calibration service takes 3-5 working days. So, if you choose Royal Mail Special Delivery, you can have your breathalyser back within 2 days of sending it to us (for example, send it to us on Monday afternoon, you’ll have it back by 1pm on Wednesday). Please note, the office does not open before 9am. All our current digital breathalysers can be calibrated, along with some older models which you’ll see above. We are the appointed Service Centre for more makes and models than anyone else in the UK because we have the technical capability to carry out all service and calibration work in-house. Sometimes, leaving your car out of use can lead to more service work than using it regularly. It’s the same with a breathalyser. Most people will perform less than 500 tests a year, in which case an annual calibration will be fine. It’s best to use a breathalyser at least a couple of times a month to make sure this doesn’t happen. We therefore recommend personal digital breathalysers are calibrated every 12 months or if you’re using it for workplace alcohol testing, every 6 months. It’s worth remembering that breathalysers are sensitive medical instruments and must be used in accordance with instructions supplied in the user manual. All breathalysers should be calibrated at least once every 12 months; those used for workplace alcohol testing should be calibrated every 6 months.http://safe-international.com/userfiles/carl-lewis-cross-trainer-elp30-manual.xml Contact us and let us know what type of breathalyser it is. If we can help, we will. All breathalysers have a finite lifespan. Looking after them with regular calibration servicing on an annual basis helps to extend the sensor accuracy, however there will be a point at which the device stops holding the calibration settings and is deemed a calibration failure. When posting your breathalyser to us, we would suggest an insured delivery method and can recommend Royal Mail Special Delivery; this will cover your breathalyser up to the value of ?500 should it go missing. Please note, the workshop does not open before 9am. By continuing to browse our website you are consenting to us using cookies as set out in our cookie policy. OK Find Out More Cookies Policy. This latest version of breath testing equipment was put into place over a period of the last five (5) years in all State and Municipal Police Departments by the Office of Alcohol testing. The last device, the Draeger Alcotest 7410, was, according to OAT own rules, accompanied with a Breath Test Operator’s manual for each and every police officer that was trained and certified to operate the machine for purposes of Operating Under the Influence (OUI) arrests and prosecutions with breath test evidence, commonly called a “per se” Offense. The result, Operators were trained how the machine works and how to properly operate the device, including recognition of error messages. At least they received a manual which set forth the proper training. The new machine? No manual from OAT, but you might get a copy of a power point presentation for the 9510, with reference to the manual for the old machine as a supplement to the power point presentation. How do you know what was said about each slide at a power point presentation. As a defense lawyer you used the Operator’s manual to learn how the machine is supposed to work and how an operator is to conduct a proper, valid test.http://www.raumboerse-luzern.ch/mieten/bosch-pgl985uc-manual You cannot prepare the cross examination of the breath test operator without the Operator manual he was trained with. Now it has come to light that OAT has known for several months, if not longer, that the Draeger Alcotest 9510 has a demonstrated and well documented history of not working properly and not reporting errors. Each Draeger 9510 is equipped with an attached Dry Gas simulator standard at 0.08. This ethanol infused gas mixture, created by a laboratory, is used as a “standard” for the machine to calibrate itself with. When this does not happen the machine is required to report the simulator reading error and abort the test. See 501 C.M.R. 2.11 (3) Calibration Standards. It means the machine cannot accurately recognize the actual amount of alcohol present in any subject sample. If it can’t read a simulator standard correctly and accurately how can it be relied upon to extrapolate human blood alcohol content from a human breath sample. According to recent disclosures, not only does the machine not recognize simulator results outside of the allowable range, it allows the evidentiary breath test against an arrested driver to go forward without notifying the Operator (Police) of the error. The machine does not work properly and it does not report the simulator error. The initial memorandum from OAT, dated March 9, 2015 to the Commonwealth’s District Attorneys cited five (5) known cases. District Attorneys in Essex and Barnstable County will not offer breath test evidence from the Draeger 9510 until further notice. Middlesex DA Marian Ryan joined in suspending her Office’s use of breath test evidence for OUI prosecutions in Middlesex County, citing knowledge of “fewer than a dozen,” similar cases in Middlesex County. The recent revelation calls into question all reported breath test results in Massachusetts on the Draeger Alcotest 9510, past, present and future. Trial by machine is a dangerous game.http://idc504.com/images/c2enet-2-manual.pdf It is an inherently and constitutionally unfair game when the Government utilizes faulty equipment, knows about of the defect for months or more, and fails to give full, complete, and timely disclosure to the accused and their counsel. The machine is the trial in a per se criminal offense in Massachusetts. That is what a per se (.08) criminal offense is. Standing alone, the breath test evidence, can and often does, result in a guilty finding with lifetime effect under Melanie’s Law. The prosecutor only need show a valid breath test of.08 or higher at or near the time of driving to obtain a conviction. The arresting officer and breath test operator hide behind “I just push the buttons, Counsel.” And the prosecutors closing arguments goe like this, “The machine works, it is tested, calibrated, and certified by OAT to convert a breath result into a true and accurate blood alcohol content at the time of driving.” That was the closing argument of every Prosecutor in Massachusetts until this past week. We should demand more from police, prosecutors, OAT and Draeger, before we allow Trial by Machine with the Government Breath Box. What is the Bowser Law Difference. Mike Bowser has unique experience and knowledge which he uses to protect his clients. This means he had to pass rigorous examinations and interviews about his knowledge of DUI law to become certified. Because he practices in all three states, Mike Bowser knows how to handle the complications that arise when you are charged as an out of state driver. Clients who have hired Mike Bowser LOVE him. He uses his deep understanding of forensic science to pick apart the evidence against you and looks for errors that he can challenge. He then carefully prepares your case with the goal of highlighting these issues and putting you in the best possible position. He is a ruthless cross-examiner who is at home in the courtroom. Judges, prosecutors, and police officers often praise his professionalism and knowledge.https://aryaayur.com/wp-content/plugins/formcraft/file-upload/server/content/files/1629ad64d5c049---corometrics-170-manual.pdf If you are facing a DUI charge, don’t delay. Clients’ Choice Award 2020 10.0 Michael Stephen Bowser Jr. Michael Stephen Bowser Jr. Accredited by American Bar Association but not regulated by Commonwealth of Massachusetts Material presented in this advertisement is intended for information purposes only. It is not intended as professional advice and should not be construed as such. The service of a competent professional should be sought if legal or other specific expert assistance is required. This site is powered by. Please try again.Please try again.Please try again. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Register a free business account To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness. And by having access to our ebooks online or by storing it on your computer, you have convenient answers with Drager Alcotest 7410 User Manual. To get started finding Drager Alcotest 7410 User Manual, you are right to find our website which has a comprehensive collection of manuals listed. Our library is the biggest of these that have literally hundreds of thousands of different products represented. I get my most wanted eBook Many thanks If there is a survey it only takes 5 minutes, try any survey which works for you. If you have an interest in a particular topic, please email us - we want to know what you want to know, and will be happy to research your specific topic for you.Click here for details. We furnish full edition.Drager Alcotest 6510 Calibration Manual enable the Alcotest 6820 to stand up to hard use and 6510, 6810, and 7510. Passive sampling or manual triggering of sampling.Content.www.girlonanelephant.com/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Carrier-infinity-technical-manual.pdf Draeger Alcotest 6810; Draeger wireless thermal printer for Alcotest 6810; 4 Batteries; Printer roll; Manual and quick start guide; Suitcase style.Drager Alcotest 7410 Plus User Manual PDF file for free that includes illustrations, tables, and a guide to abbreviations, Drager alcotest 6810 operator manual.The Drager 6820 alcotest is easy to use and provides fast, The successor to the 6810, Passive sampling or manual triggering of sampling possible. We offer a variety of calibration service.Vergelijkbare zoekopdrachten voor drager 6810.Whilst the total cost of a professional Police Grade unit such as the Drager.Draeger wireless thermal printer for Alcotest 6810. Draeger Alcotest 6810; 2 Batteries; Manual; Suitcase style hard carrying case; 3 x disposable mouthpieces.Draeger 6810 Data Package Because the Draeger Alcotest 6810 offers intuitive operation, User's manual;.Alcotest 6820 is the logical successor to the successful Alcotest 6810. Passive sampling or manual triggering of sampling possible.The Draeger Alcotest 6810 offers professional users precise and quick breath Manually activated Passive Sampling measurement makes measurements. FREE SHIPPING.The Drager Alcotest 6810 Training course instructs frontline officers on the correct operation of this roadside screening device. Designed to satisfy.Draeger Alcotest 6820 Kullan?m? Draeger Safety Turkiye. USADraeger 11,000 views.Drager Alcotest 6810 Passive sampling without mouthpiece or manual initiation of sampling possible Ready for use Approx. 6 s after switching.Drager Alcotest 6820. The Drager Alcotest 6820 is a breath alcohol detector. This breathalyser was designed to suceed the Alcotest 6810. It’s handheld and highly. Breath Alcohol Screening Device with Datamanagement.https://www.ponderosafestival.com/wp-content/plugins/formcraft/file-upload/server/content/files/1629ad64e7da76---Corometrics-250cx-user-manual.pdf I recommend asking for a jury instruction on what an invalid test is, so the jury can consider the rule on mouth alcohol or interference. Even if it’s not allowed, I recommend talking to the jury about what a valid test requires and questioning the toxicologist or Draeger technician about the technical manual and its requirements. LynneJeane joined 1 hour ago. Alcodigital 3000 Breathalyzer, Drager 3000 Breath Tester, Drager 3000, AlcoDigital 3000 Breathalyser. Instructions for Use - Drger Alcotest Do not connect electrical instruments not mentioned in this manual before having contacted Drger Safety AG u0026 Co. KGaA or an. A description of several popular alcohol breathalyzers being sold, with pricing. Semiconductor breathalyzers are compared with fuel-cell breathalizers. Data respecting Alcotest 7410.LynneJeane joined 1 hour ago. Data respecting Alcotest 7410. Don’t Trust Them. Alcohol breath tests, a linchpin of the criminal justice system, are often unreliable, a Times investigation found. The test results produced by these machines are increasingly drawing skepticism from judges. Credit. Cooper Neill for The New York Times Supported by Continue reading the main story By Stacy Cowley and Jessica Silver-Greenberg Nov. 3, 2019 A million Americans a year are arrested for drunken driving, and most stops begin the same way: flashing blue lights in the rearview mirror, then a battery of tests that might include standing on one foot or reciting the alphabet. What matters most, though, happens next. By the side of the road or at the police station, the drivers blow into a miniature science lab that estimates the concentration of alcohol in their blood. If the level is 0.08 or higher, they are all but certain to be convicted of a crime. But those tests — a bedrock of the criminal justice system — are often unreliable, a New York Times investigation found.http://kwik-it.ru/wp-content/plugins/formcraft/file-upload/server/content/files/1629ad65e3e0d0---corometrics-171-manual.pdf The devices, found in virtually every police station in America, generate skewed results with alarming frequency, even though they are marketed as precise to the third decimal place. Judges in Massachusetts and New Jersey have thrown out more than 30,000 breath tests in the past 12 months alone, largely because of human errors and lax governmental oversight. Across the country, thousands of other tests also have been invalidated in recent years. The machines are sensitive scientific instruments, and in many cases they haven’t been properly calibrated, yielding results that were at times 40 percent too high. Maintaining machines is up to police departments that sometimes have shoddy standards and lack expertise. In some cities, lab officials have used stale or home-brewed chemical solutions that warped results. In Massachusetts, officers used a machine with rats nesting inside. Watch “The Weekly,” The Times’s New TV Show, on FX and Hulu There are more than a million drunken driving arrests in America each year, but the devices the police use to test drivers’ breath may not even work. States have picked devices that their own experts didn’t trust and have disabled safeguards meant to ensure the tests’ accuracy. The Times interviewed more than 100 lawyers, scientists, executives and police officers and reviewed tens of thousands of pages of court records, corporate filings, confidential emails and contracts. Together, they reveal the depth of a nationwide problem that has attracted only sporadic attention. A county judge in Pennsylvania called it “extremely questionable” whether any of his state’s breath tests could withstand serious scrutiny. In response, local prosecutors stopped using them. In Florida, a panel of judges described their state’s instrument as a “magic black box” with “significant and continued anomalies.” Even some industry veterans say the machines should not be de facto arbiters of guilt.www.erdilveteriner.com/files/Carrier-infinity-system-thermostat-manual.pdf “The tests were never meant to be used that way,” said John Fusco, who ran National Patent Analytical Systems, a maker of breath-testing devices. Yet the tests have become all but unavoidable. Every state punishes drivers who refuse to take one when ordered by a police officer. The consequences of the legal system’s reliance on these tests are far-reaching. People are wrongfully convicted based on dubious evidence. Hundreds were never notified that their cases were built on faulty tests. And when flaws are discovered, the solution has been to discard the results — letting potentially dangerous drivers off the hook. A man backed his car into an 83-year-old woman outside a liquor store and then failed field sobriety tests. Another man was stopped after vomiting out the window and veering “all over the road.” One more driver, with a suspended license, was pulled over and blew a 0.32 — a level of drunkenness that would leave most people unconscious. All three were arrested and charged with driving drunk. All three had previous convictions for driving while intoxicated, according to police reports and court records. And all three were acquitted after Massachusetts was forced to throw out their breath tests — along with more than 36,000 others — in one of the largest exclusions of forensic evidence in American history. A FATEFUL TRIP Image Matthew Mottor of Hinsdale, Mass. His case took more than five years to resolve. Credit. Tony Luong for The New York Times The Deerfield River snakes through the woods of northwestern Massachusetts, and on a hot Sunday in July 2013 it was packed with rafters. Matthew Mottor arrived with more than a dozen friends and family members and two coolers of Blue Moon beer. They spent hours tubing down the river and drinking before going ashore for a picnic. That’s when a drunk woman in the group caught the eye of a Massachusetts State Police trooper patrolling the area. The trooper, Steven Hean, told them to get their friend home. The party over, Mr. Mottor left his girlfriend and got a ride to his truck, a few miles upriver. He pulled his gray Dodge Durango onto the winding road. He made it about 200 yards. Then he saw the flashing lights. Trooper Hean wrote in a report that he stopped Mr. Mottor for driving 41 miles per hour in a 25 m.p.h. zone. Detecting “a strong odor” of liquor on Mr. Mottor’s breath, the trooper asked him to perform some field sobriety tests, including walking heel-to-toe. Accidents years earlier had left Mr. Mottor with metal plates in his ankles and feet, court records show. “I explained to him that I’m not great at walking around on two feet on an everyday basis,” Mr. Mottor said. After passing two tests — reciting the alphabet and standing on one leg — he struggled to walk in a line. Trooper Hean brought out his breath test er. Hand-held devices, like Trooper Hean’s Alco-Sensor IV, contain fuel cells that react to the alcohol in exhaled breaths and generate an electric current — the stronger the current, the higher the alcohol level. They are inexpensive and easy to maintain, but their results can be inconsistent. Older women sometimes have trouble producing enough breath to get the machines to work. Toothpaste, mouthwash and breath mints — even hand sanitizer and burping — may throw off the test results. Tests from those portable machines are not admissible in court in most states (California is among the exceptions). But they often trigger an arrest, which leads to a test on another machine at the police station. That result determines whether someone is charged — and, often, whether they’re convicted. By the side of River Road, Mr. Mottor blew a 0.13, far above the legal limit. That’s when the cuffs came out. THE DRUNKOMETER Image An alcohol breath test from 1937. Credit. Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Attempts to prevent drunken driving predate the modern automobile. In the late 19th century, Britain had outlawed being drunk while operating a “carriage, horse, cattle or steam engine.” In 1897, a London taxi driver named George Smith crashed his electric cab. He confessed to having had “two or three glasses of beer” and was fined 20 shillings. It is widely regarded as the first arrest for intoxicated driving. Near the end of Prohibition, a biochemist invented a suitcase-sized machine with vials of chemicals and a balloon to blow into. Alcohol in the driver’s breath would trigger a reaction: the drunker the driver, the deeper the chemicals’ color. It was called the Drunkometer. But it was bulky and hard to use. Two decades later, a police photographer and amateur chemist named Robert Borkenstein developed a similar but more portable machine. He named it the Breathalyzer. Police departments around the country bought Mr. Borkenstein’s invention and versions developed by competitors. Then, in 1980, a fatal collision led to an overhaul of America’s drunken driving laws — and a sales boom for companies that made breath-testing devices. Carime Lightner, 13, was walking to a church carnival in Fair Oaks, Calif., when a drunken driver slammed into her so hard she was knocked out of her shoes. The man had been arrested repeatedly for intoxicated driving. Carime’s mother started Mothers Against Drunk Driving and launched one of the most effective citizen lobbying campaigns in history. States set stiffer penalties, including mandatory jail time in some cases, and made it illegal to drive with a blood-alcohol level above a designated mark. The crackdown worked. In 1982, the year the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began keeping records, some 21,000 people were killed in drunken-driving incidents. The number of deaths tumbled to around 10,500 in the most recent annual tally, even as the number of miles driven by Americans has nearly doubled. From the First Drunken Driving Case to Modern Challenges Read the documents The Times gathered to understand breath-testing machines, and the problems that have caused tens of thousands of tests to be thrown out. In most of the country, the threshold for illegal drunkenness is 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. The only way to measure that directly is to draw blood, which requires a warrant. Breath tests are simpler. The biggest contracts, with state police crime labs, are worth millions. A St. Louis company, Intoximeters, made the portable device used on Mr. Mottor. Drager, a German company, owns the rights to the Breathalyzer name. CMI, based in Kentucky, is another industry leader. “Our top priority is the quality and safety of our products,” said Brian Shaffer, a Drager spokesman. “Our products provide the highest level of forensic and legal integrity.” He added, “Our advanced evidential breath alcohol testing instruments exceed the requirements of national and international regulatory agencies.” CMI and Intoximeters did not respond to multiple requests for comment. STARTING TO PANIC Image A police vehicle on the road leading into Cheshire, Massachusetts. Credit. Patrick Dodson for The New York Times Shirtless and still in swim trunks, Mr. Mottor arrived at the police barracks in Cheshire, Mass. He didn’t think he was drunk. But he was starting to panic. He had left his phone in his S.U.V. and had no way to tell his girlfriend what had happened. He pictured her alone by the river, thinking he had driven into a ditch. Mr. Mottor was escorted to the station’s breath-testing machine. It was larger, more sophisticated and in theory more reliable than Trooper Hean’s portable instrument, and its results were admissible in court. Trooper Hean asked Mr. Mottor to start blowing. Hoping it would help him get back to his girlfriend faster, he complied. The Alcotest 9510, manufactured by Drager, resembles a fax machine with a small hose. As a person breathes into the device, a beam of infrared light is shot through the sample. Chemicals, including the ethanol in alcoholic drinks, absorb light to varying degrees. By analyzing how much light is absorbed, the instrument can identify the type of chemical and the amount of it present. Many machines, including the Alcotest 9510, also use a fuel-cell sensor — the same type of tool that is in portable devices. Each system is supposed to operate independently; if both return similar results, the theory goes, it’s an extra assurance that the measurement is accurate. Mr. Mottor blew for about 10 seconds, the machine beeped, and a number flashed on its screen: 0.08. He was charged with operating under the influence, which leads to the automatic revocation of driving privileges in Massachusetts. What happens during those 60 seconds, though, has been the subject of years of courtroom fights. Defense lawyers have repeatedly tried to forensically examine the machines, especially their software. Inspecting the code could reveal any built-in flaws or assumptions the devices use in their calculations. But even procuring a machine is a challenge. Manufacturers won’t sell them to the public. Jan Semenoff, a former police officer who works with defense lawyers, was once a CMI salesman and had a machine left over from those days. When he sent it in for a repair, CMI wiped the machine’s memory chip. “They turned the damn thing into a paperweight,” Mr. Semenoff said. Courts in at least six states, including New York, have rebuffed defense lawyers’ attempts to get their hands on the machines’ code. But in 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted a request by defense lawyers and ordered Drager to allow outside experts to analyze the software for the Alcotest 7110 machines in use statewide. The experts said it was littered with “thousands of programming errors,” according to their report to the court. After reviewing the evidence, the court deemed the Alcotest 7110 “generally scientifically reliable.” But the state court also acknowledged the devices had “mechanical and technical shortcomings” that had the potential to produce the wrong result. Drager said it quickly fixed the problems, but the state never rolled out the software update, court records show. Drager now advertises the 7110 as the only device on the market whose software “has been reviewed by independent third parties and approved by a Supreme Court decision.” None of that made a difference in other states, which employ a variety of machines and standards. Each state decides how rigorously it will test machines, and several have used devices that were deemed unreliable elsewhere. In 2005, for example, Vermont’s toxicology lab scrutinized machines from four manufacturers. The lab rated CMI’s Intoxilyzer 8000 as “unsatisfactory” and found that it gave inaccurate results on “ almost every test,” according to a lab technician’s report. But the same device was already being used in Mississippi, and it would soon be deployed by other states, including Ohio and Oregon. Florida, too, adopted the Intoxilyzer 8000, even after a test machine short-circuited and started to smoke, state records show. When the state began setting up its new devices, technicians found they were returning inaccurately low results, according to court testimony. A CMI engineer diagnosed a problem with airflow, and he drilled a small hole in the exhaust valve to solve it. The fix worked. CMI started boring holes in all the devices it sent to police departments in Florida, court records show. When defense lawyers discovered the undisclosed change, they challenged its legality. The Collier County judge who heard the case in 2012 said he was “extremely concerned” about the modifications. “A criminal defendant should not face conviction and possible incarceration based on secret undisclosed evidence,” he wrote in his ruling.