IAFTC Newsletter

IAFTC Newsletter. Volume 1. Issue 1. October 3, 2025.

Aaron Olson¹  

¹ARO Consulting LLC, PO Box 132, Hugo MN, 55038

This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

Download PDF

Introduction

In June 2025, defense attorney Charles Ramsay and I published "Errors in toxicology testing and the need for full discovery" in Forensic Science International: Synergy [1]. Our review documented notable toxicology errors across multiple jurisdictions collected over a combined 48 years of field experience. 

This news article provides IAFTC members with brief updates on toxicology errors in the news since that publication.

Minnesota Breath Alcohol Testing: Control Target Error

In September 2025, Minnesota defense attorneys Charles Ramsay and I discovered that a DataMaster DMT breath alcohol analyzer had been operating with an unknown control target for nearly one year, from May 25, 2024, to May 4, 2025. The error occurred when an operator entered incorrect dry gas cylinder information during a Control Change test, resulting in 73 potentially invalid test results across multiple law enforcement agencies [2].

When the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) was confronted with this information, they acknowledged that their scientists cannot testify to the accuracy of these tests, stating that "BCA forensic scientists can only testify to the accuracy of test results with a known valid control target."

The BCA's internal quality controls missed this error for nearly an entire year. It took an independent review by defense counsel and outside experts to discover what should have been caught by basic quality assurance protocols.

Internal BCA emails reveal how the laboratory framed who was responsible for the error. In the nonconformity report, the BCA stated: "This is not the result of any work performed by the BCA Calibration Laboratory; it is the result of the agency entering incorrect information during the Control Change." 

Yet laboratory-level verification of Control Change data, a quality control step, should have been in place from the beginning.

Early notification drafts credited the defense attorney with discovering the error, but the final version removed this attribution. 

The first draft stated: "In a recent case, a defense attorney noticed that the dry gas cylinder referenced on a test record did not match the dry gas cylinder reported by the BCA to be installed in the instrument." 

The final notification sent to agencies simply stated: "It was discovered that the information associated with the installed dry gas cylinder for Instrument 100821...was entered incorrectly by an operator," removing any reference to how the error was actually discovered.

This pattern reinforces findings from our paper: laboratories often shirk taking responsibility for their errors and fail to recognize the need for independent outside auditors.

University of Illinois Chicago: THC Isomer Misidentification and Testimony Issues

In one of the most troubling cases of systematic evidence suppression, the University of Illinois Chicago Analytical Forensic Testing Laboratory (AFTL) knowingly used flawed testing methods for marijuana-impaired driving cases from 2021 through 2024 [3].

The laboratory's method could not distinguish between delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), the primary psychoactive compound in cannabis, and delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC). This was important because the state's DUI law ties legal limits exclusively to Δ9-THC. Laboratory personnel became aware of these method deficiencies as early as 2021 but failed to disclose them until 2023, allowing hundreds of potentially wrongful convictions to proceed [4].

Figure 1. Δ8-THC, Δ9-THC, Δ10-THC. (Image credit: Mantinieks D, 2024; [5])

Injustice Watch revealed the harm caused to individuals by flawed testimony and testing. The report detailed how a lab analyst testified that THC metabolites in urine could be used to determine impairment, a claim that contradicts established toxicological science. The defense eventually called in renowned toxicologist Marilyn Huestis to testify against this type of testimony.

Approximately 1,600 marijuana-impaired driving cases were compromised. A 2025 prosecutorial review in DuPage County resulted in the dismissal of charges in 19 cases due to compromised evidentiary reliability [6].

University of Kentucky: Equine Testing Fraud

The September 2025 termination of University of Kentucky equine testing lab director Dr. Scott Stanley demonstrated how weak oversight enables systematic misconduct [7]. 

In November 2023, the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit requested confirmatory analysis for a banned substance. Over the course of two months, Stanley repeatedly reported that the sample had been analyzed with negative results. 

On February 23, 2024, when HIWU inquired about remaining sample volume, lab staff revealed the sample "had never been analyzed and, in fact, had never even been opened." The university's audit found Stanley falsified results, failed to perform confirmatory analysis on 91 samples that screened positive.

The case revealed laboratory vulnerabilities. Weak internal controls gave all staff unrestricted data access while giving Stanley sole authority over communicating results to oversight agencies. 

Tennessee: Field Sobriety Test False Positives

Recent events in Tennessee illustrate the broader problems with the reliability of field sobriety testing [8]. Sixteen sober drivers were arrested for DUI by Tennessee state troopers in 2025, with eight arrests made by a single officer.

The most publicized case involved Jane Bondurant, a 71-year-old former U.S. Attorney, whose bloodwork came back clean except for prescribed medication taken the night before. Despite this, she was arrested, handcuffed, and jailed based on subjective field sobriety test performance.

These cases highlight the high false-positive rate associated with field sobriety tests [9].

Analysis: Recurring Patterns

These 2025 errors demonstrate the same patterns documented in our comprehensive review:

1. Extended Detection Times Errors persist for months or years before discovery (Minnesota: 1 year; UIC: 3 years).

2. External Discovery Problems are identified by defense attorneys, whistleblowers, or independent experts rather than internal quality controls.

3. Institutional Resistance Laboratories viewed transparency requests as hostile and developed cultures where concealment becomes normalized.

4. Systematic Impact: Individual errors affect dozens or thousands of cases before detection.

Implications for IAFTC Members

These cases underscore critical considerations for forensic toxicology consultants. Discovery requests must explicitly include all digital data and quality assurance documentation, not just final reports.

These errors highlight the ongoing need for laboratory culture reform, echoing the 2009 NAS report's recommendations [10]. IAFTC members should advocate for online discovery portals, mandatory retention of digital data, third-party audits beyond standard accreditation, and clear protocols for disclosure of discovery materials.

Conclusion

The toxicology errors documented in the months since our June 2025 publication continue to show the need for reform in forensic toxicology. These are not isolated incidents but manifestations of systemic vulnerabilities that persist across jurisdictions and disciplines.

For IAFTC members serving as expert witnesses, laboratory directors, or policy advisors, these cases underscore the importance of transparency, independent oversight, and cultural change within forensic laboratories. Scientific integrity requires more than technical competence; it demands institutional structures that make concealment impossible and accountability mandatory.

Conflicts of Interest

The author serves as an expert witness in forensic toxicology cases and receives compensation for speaking engagements.

AI Use Disclosure

The author used Claude (Anthropic) to assist with the organization and formatting of this article. All content was verified and substantially written by the author, who takes full responsibility for accuracy.

References

[1] Olson A, Ramsay C. Errors in toxicology testing and the need for full discovery. Forensic Sci Int Synerg 2025;11:100629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100629.

[2] Knudsen C. Attorney discovers problem with alcohol detection device used in DWI cases in the heart of Minnesota’s cabin country. KSTP-TV LLC 2025. https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/attorney-discovers-problem-with-alcohol-detection-device-used-in-dwi-cases-in-the-heart-of-minnesotas-cabin-country/   (accessed September 25, 2025).

[3] Dukmasova M. How a rogue Chicago forensics lab got people convicted for driving high. Injustice Watch 2025. https://www.injusticewatch.org/project/forensic-failures/2025/uic-forensics-lab-cannabis-dui-scandal/  (accessed August 14, 2025).

[4] Goudie C, Markoff B, Tressel C, Jones T. Chicago forensic testing lab accused of providing flawed results in marijuana DUI convictions. ABC7 Chicago 2024. https://abc7chicago.com/post/university-illinois-chicago-analytical-forensic-testing-laboratory-accused-providing-flawed-results-marijuana-dui-cases/15624653/  (accessed June 12, 2025).

[5] Mantinieks D, Di Rago M, Drummer OH, Glowacki L, Schumann J, Gerostamoulos D. Quantitative analysis of tetrahydrocannabinol isomers and other toxicologically relevant drugs in blood. Drug Test Anal 2024;16:1102–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.3632.

[6] Rivera M, Tressel C, Markoff B, Jones T. DuPage County state’s attorney dismisses marijuana DUI charges after faulty blood tests. ABC7 Chicago 2025. https://abc7chicago.com/post/dupage-county-states-attorney-dismisses-marijuana-dui-charges-faulty-blood-tests-university-illinois-chicago-aftl/15851816/  (accessed June 12, 2025).

[7] Kuzydym S. University of Kentucky terminates former equine testing lab director. Louisville Courier Journal 2025. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2025/09/11/university-of-kentucky-equine-testing-lab-director-terminated/86097262007/  (accessed September 13, 2025).

[8] Finley J. Former US attorney is 8th sober driver to be arrested for DUI by state trooper. WSMV 4 2025. https://www.wsmv.com/2025/08/28/former-us-attorney-is-8th-sober-driver-be-arrested-dui-by-state-trooper/  (accessed August 29, 2025).

[9] Kane G, Kane E. The high reported accuracy of the standardized field sobriety test is a property of the statistic not of the test. Law Probab Risk 2021;20:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgab004 .

[10] National Research Council, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, Policy and Global Affairs, Committee on Science, Technology, and Law, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, D.C., DC: National Academies Press; 2009. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf

Presentation Summary

On October 17, 2025, Dr. Stefan Rose will challenge retrograde extrapolation's scientific validity by focusing on an impossible requirement: knowing when and how much the pyloric valve opens to allow gastric contents to flow into the small intestine where the majority of alcohol absorption occurs—information unavailable without continuous physiological monitoring of multiple timed blood or breath samples starting at the beginning of the drinking episode.

The presentation will cover the complex factors controlling pyloric valve opening and closing: neural regulation (vagus nerve, myenteric plexus, splanchnic nerve), hormonal influences (gastrin, insulin, secretin, somatostatin, motilin, and other peptides), and external variables that delay gastric emptying and invalidate any retrograde extrapolation, including food, medications, trauma, surgery, and disease states like diabetes.

Dr. Rose argues that because pyloric valve status at any point in time of a drinking episode cannot be determined retroactively, retrograde extrapolation is fundamentally flawed and dubious, and addresses why analytical chemistry training has overshadowed comprehensive pharmacological education in the field.

About the Presenter

Dr. Stefan Rose is a physician with over 40 years of experience spanning Forensic Toxicology, Clinical Pathology, and General Psychiatry. He completed formal Forensic Toxicology training at the Dade County Medical Examiner Department (1989-1991), founded the first DUI laboratory at the University of Miami (1992), and completed psychiatric residency (1995-1998), where he correlated behavioral effects of drugs and ethanol with laboratory findings. He has served as a courtesy professor in Chemistry at FIU since 1997, is Board Certified by the National Board of Medical Examiners, and has extensive expert testimony experience in state, federal, civil, and criminal courts.

Join us

This presentation is for members only. Consider joining us to attend future webinars.

The International Association of Forensic Toxicology Consultants (IAFTC) is excited to announce the launch of our professional newsletter and invites members to submit their work for publication.

This is an exceptional opportunity to gain publication credit in a peer-reviewed professional organization newsletter and share your expertise with colleagues across the field.

Publication Timeline

Articles will be published on a rolling basis as soon as they complete peer review and are ready for press. Your work will appear on our website immediately upon acceptance rather than waiting for a traditional issue release date.

Types of Submissions We're Seeking

We welcome diverse contributions including:

• Case Studies - Real-world applications, challenges, or outcomes from your practice
• Emerging Trends - Analysis of new developments in forensic toxicology
• Scientific Reports - Research findings, validation studies, or technical investigations
• Survey Data and Findings - Presentation and analysis of survey results
• Original Articles - In-depth exploration of relevant topics
• Perspectives and Commentary - Thought leadership and opinion pieces on current issues
• News Items - Timely updates and announcements of professional interest
• Happenings from the Field - Professional events, achievements, or noteworthy developments

Free Format Submission Guidelines

What is Free Format?

We accept submissions in free format, which means you have flexibility in how you structure and present your work. You're not required to follow a rigid template or specific journal style—write in the format that best suits your content and focus on clear communication.

• No rigid templates required - Structure your article in the way that best serves your content
• Author's choice of organization - Use the format appropriate for your submission type
• Focus on content quality - Professional writing and clear communication matter more than strict formatting rules
• Standard citation styles accepted - APA, AMA, MLA, or any consistent academic format

Required Elements

All submissions should include:

• Title - Clear and descriptive
• Author name(s) and credentials - Include your professional identification
• Abstract or summary - For research articles, case studies, and scientific reports (150-250 words)
• Introduction - Context for why your topic matters
• Main content - Well-organized sections with appropriate headers
• Conclusion - Key takeaways or implications for practice
• References - Any standard academic citation style is acceptable (APA, AMA, MLA, etc.)
• Conflicts of Interest Statement - Disclosure of any financial or personal interests (see below)
• Acknowledgements - Recognition of contributors, funding sources, or support (if applicable)
• AI Use Disclosure - Statement regarding use of artificial intelligence tools (see below)

Transparency and Disclosure Requirements

Conflicts of Interest Statement

All authors must disclose any financial or personal interests that could be perceived as influencing their work. This promotes transparency and maintains the integrity of published research.

What to disclose:

• Employment relationships (including government laboratory employment)
• Consulting arrangements or expert witness work
• Research funding sources
• Financial interests in companies or products discussed
• Personal relationships that might present conflicts
• Any other circumstances that could be perceived as influencing objectivity

Example disclosure: "Dr. Smith serves as an expert witness in DUI cases and is employed by [Laboratory Name]. This work was partially funded by [Grant Source]."

Acknowledgements

Authors should acknowledge individuals or organizations that contributed to the work but do not meet authorship criteria.

What to include:

• Technical assistance or data collection support
• Funding sources or grants
• Institutional support
• Colleagues who provided feedback or review
• Any other substantive contributions

Example: "The authors thank [Name] for technical assistance with laboratory analysis and [Institution] for providing access to case files. This work was supported by [Funding Source]."

AI Use Disclosure

As artificial intelligence tools become increasingly prevalent in scientific writing, IAFTC requires transparency regarding their use.

Authors must disclose:

• Use of AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Grammarly AI, etc.) for any aspect of manuscript preparation
• Specific ways AI was used (literature search, writing assistance, data analysis, editing, etc.)
• Which AI tools were used

Important: Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of all content, regardless of AI assistance. AI-generated content must be verified for accuracy and properly cited where applicable.

Example disclosure: "The authors used [AI Tool Name] to assist with grammar checking and initial literature organization. All content was verified and substantially revised by the authors. No AI-generated content appears without author review and validation."

File Format

Submit your work in any of the following formats:

• Microsoft Word (.docx)
• Google Doc (share link with edit/comment access)
• Plain text (.txt)
• PDF

Use standard fonts (Times New Roman, Arial, Calibri) in 11 or 12-point size.

Peer Review Process

All submissions undergo peer review to ensure quality and accuracy while maintaining the high professional standards expected of IAFTC publications. Our editorial team will work collaboratively with you on any necessary revisions.

General announcements will not be peer reviewed.

Why Submit?

✓ Publication credit in a professional organization newsletter
✓ Be among the first authors featured in our inaugural volume
✓ Share your expertise with colleagues across the field
✓ Build your professional portfolio with peer-reviewed publication
✓ Contribute to the community by advancing knowledge in forensic toxicology
✓ Immediate visibility through rolling publication on our website

Ready to Submit?

Whether you're an established practitioner, researcher, or emerging professional, we encourage you to share your knowledge and experience. Your contributions will help establish this important platform for professional development and knowledge sharing within our field.

Submit your article or questions to:
editor@iaftc.org

Questions about topics or submission process?
Contact editor@iaftc.org - We're happy to discuss ideas before you submit!

Tips for Success

• Choose a topic you're knowledgeable about and passionate about
• Write clearly for a professional audience
• Support your points with data, examples, or case details
• Organize logically with headers and clear sections
• Cite your sources using any consistent academic format
• Don't worry about perfection - Our editorial team is here to help

Examples of Potential Topics

Not sure what to write about? Here are some ideas to spark your thinking:

• Challenges you've encountered in case work and how you addressed them
• New technologies or methods you've implemented in your laboratory
• Analysis of trends you're seeing in drug testing or toxicology results
• Quality assurance issues and solutions
• Interpretation challenges in complex cases
• Updates on regulatory changes or standards
• Conference highlights or continuing education insights
• Validation studies or method comparisons
• Expert witness experiences and lessons learned

Join Us in Creating Something Special

The IAFTC Newsletter represents a new platform for our professional community to share knowledge, discuss challenges, and advance the field of forensic toxicology and related disciplines. Your contribution will help establish the tone and quality of this important resource.

We look forward to featuring your work!