Drivers Seek Supreme Court Ruling in Breathalyzer Class Action

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Earlier this month, two plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit alleging that Draeger Safety Diagnostics Inc. manufactured a defective blood alcohol testing device asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case.

The breathalyzer class action lawsuit was dismissed by a New Jersey federal court in October of 2013. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, but the plaintiffs claim that the appellate court erred in finding that the claims were precluded by state court since the case was never brought to New Jersey state court.

“This case gives the court the opportunity to balance the interest of our citizens against the technological tsunami that will soon inundate our society,” the plaintiffs in the breathalyzer class action lawsuit said in their May 6 petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Will our citizenry be able to assert their rights against a black box with a red button, or must they surrender their liberties to a machine?”

According to the breathalyzer test class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in 2010 and 2011. After they were convicted, the plaintiffs challenged the accuracy of the blood alcohol concentration results obtained by police using Draeger’s Alcotest 7110 machine. They alleged in their class action lawsuit that Draeger hasn’t established a protocol to test, fix or ensure the accuracy of the Alcotest’s pressure and flow sensors.

The Draeger Alcotest class action lawsuit was dismissed by a New Jersey district court judge that found that since the claims had been litigated in state court already, the federal court decision would be “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s adjudication, meaning that federal relief can only be granted on a premise that the state court was wrong. The 3rd Circuit upheld the district court’s decision relying on a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling, State v. Chun, that the Alcotest devices were scientifically reliable and that their results were admissible.

The plaintiffs claim in their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court that the ruling in that case shouldn’t bar their claims. “The petitioners are not seeking a review or reversal of the Chun decision,” the plaintiffs argue in their petition. “Moreover,” they continue, “the petitioners were not seeking a reversal of their municipal convictions or the convictions of any putative class member. The petitioners wish to establish that the Alcotest system is unsuitable for the purpose for which it is used and that members of the putative class have suffered harm.”

The plaintiffs also claim that the district court failed to address their arguments that their rights are protected under the 9th and 12th Amendments to the Constitution. “Since product liability is not delegated to the states by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, a PLA claim would be protected from federal interference by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. This case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to address and develop an area of our jurisprudence that has remained dormant for centuries,” wrote the plaintiffs in their petition.

The plaintiffs’ attorney has produced a documentary titled Trouble in Paradise to inform consumers about the Draeger class action lawsuit and the potential issues associated with the Alcotest breath testing device. It may be viewed at www.frankieleaks.com.

The lead plaintiffs are represented by Ashton E. Thomas of The Law Office of Ashton E. Thomas.

The Draeger Breathalyzer Class Action Lawsuit cases are Johnson, et al. v. Draeger Safety Diagnostics Inc., Case No. 14-1334, in the Supreme Court of the United States and Johnson, et al. v. Draeger Safety Diagnostics Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-02439, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.