[vmelaugh]

If no alcohol was consumed what would cause my result to come back at 0.039

[vmelaugh]

What could cause a detection of 0.039 when no alcohol has been consumed

[cdad]

Why were you required to take a test ?

[vmelaugh]

Due to alcohol misuse in the past and due to child protection issues and a prohibited steps order by the court to determine if I have stopped drinking

[vmelaugh]

Why were you required to take a test ?

To determine if I have consumed any alcohol over the last three months due to a prohibited steps agreement ordered by the court

[JudyKayTee]

Please post each question once and don't open multiple threads.

[Fr_Chuck]

As a formal police officer and one certified in DUI enforcement and certified in the past in using breath test, I don't know of anything that woul give that high of reading falsely.

What type of test was used

[JudyKayTee]

And I hear this all day every day when I'm working. People are positively mystified when they test positive.

[DrBill100]

By failing to provide the quantitative extension for the 0.039 you have muddled the question. As a % of alcohol (BAC) that would be higher than could be explained beyond very recent consumption. Therefore, that seeming unlikely and your statement that no alcohol was consumed this must be a measurement of EtG which renders it very low and well within the range that can be explained by incidental exposure to environment alcohol.

All federally mandated screening tests exclude use of EtG screening with a cut-off that even allows detection at this level. SAMHSA, the regulating agency, issued an advisory in 2006 noting the unreliability of low threshold EtG testing for this very reason.

See: SAMHSA ADVISORY, Sept 2006