When people bring me the printed result of an Intoxilyzer 9000 breath test, their attention almost always goes straight to the number. That is understandable. The number is what the police report emphasizes, and it is often the centerpiece of an Operating While Intoxicated prosecution. But the printed report contains other information as well, including the date on which the operator says he or she was certified to run the instrument. Until recently, few people outside the breath-testing community paid much attention to that line. Events in Grand Traverse County during 2026 show why it deserves a close look in every Michigan breath-test case.
This article explains what happened in Grand Traverse County, what the Michigan State Police told law enforcement agencies about operator certification in December 2025, what Michigan's breath-testing administrative rules require, and how these issues can affect a pending or closed OWI case. As with most breath-testing questions, the answer in any individual case depends on the records.
What Happened in Grand Traverse County
According to a press release issued by the Grand Traverse County Sheriff's Office, the Grand Traverse County Prosecuting Attorney's Office contacted the Sheriff's Office on August 20, 2026, with questions about Intoxilyzer 9000 operator certifications and the certification dates being entered into the instrument. The Sheriff's Office reported that it began an internal review, requested an additional review by the Michigan State Police, and immediately directed deputies to stop using the Intoxilyzer 9000 at the county jail and to use blood draws instead.
The Sheriff's Office described two problems uncovered by that review. First, a deputy whose certification had lapsed could complete a recertification course and receive a new certificate of completion, even though the administrative rules require an operator with a lapsed certification to complete the initial certification program. Second, the Intoxilyzer 9000 would accept a certification date entered by the operator, rather than requiring the operator's actual certification date, and would still complete the analysis. The release stated that 17 of 71 MCOLES-certified officers were affected and that 41 alcohol-related cases were involved. It also acknowledged that the concerns may extend beyond the Sheriff's Office and the Traverse City Police Department.
On September 17, 2026, Grand Traverse County Prosecuting Attorney Noelle R. Moeggenberg issued a letter stating that officers from both the Sheriff's Office and the Traverse City Police Department had used the Intoxilyzer 9000 at the county jail after their certifications expired. The letter took a clear position on the evidentiary consequence: "Intoxilyzer results obtained by an operator who was not properly certified at the time of administering the test are not admissible." The letter stated that the affected cases ranged from August 2025 to August 2026, that several pending cases had been dismissed outright, and that the office would not object to a defendant who wished to withdraw a plea based on the error. It also stated that whether the office would continue to prosecute a given case would be decided individually, based on evidence of intoxication or impairment that exists independently of the Intoxilyzer results.
News coverage by UpNorthLive (WPBN/WGTU) on September 22, 2026, reported that a Traverse City Police Department captain said an audit requested from the Michigan State Police confirmed that some officers were still validly certified, but that most of the department's officers had expired certifications. The same report stated that the prosecutor's office was addressing pending cases first, that new plea offers had been made in some cases, and that cases in which a defendant had pleaded guilty but had not yet been sentenced were also being addressed.
The Michigan State Police Warning in December 2025
The Grand Traverse County problem did not arise without warning. On December 18, 2025, the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division issued a Customer Notice addressed to law enforcement officers, attorneys, and courts. The notice explains that the MSP administers the state's evidential breath alcohol program, that the MSP Training Division conducts and maintains the records of operator certifications, and that the Forensic Science Division oversees the acquisition, validation, deployment, maintenance, and data collection of the breath-testing instruments.
The notice states that, during testing, operators manually enter their certification date into the instrument, but that the instrument is "currently unable to verify the accuracy of the entered date or the operator's credentials." In other words, the certification date printed on the subject's test report is information typed in by the operator. The instrument does not check it against the MSP Training Division's records.
Because of that limitation, the MSP directed agencies to confirm two things: that the certification date on the printed test report matches the operator's most recent Intoxilyzer 9000 training or refresher course, and that the operator's certification was valid on the date of testing. The notice also addressed the same recertification problem later identified in Grand Traverse County: "Refresher courses completed after a certification has expired are considered invalid and the operator is no longer certified." According to the MSP, an operator in that situation must attend the full in-person Intoxilyzer 9000 training to regain certification.
What the Administrative Rules Require of Breath Test Operators
Michigan's evidential breath-testing program is governed in part by administrative rules promulgated by the Department of State Police. The rules recite that they are issued under authority conferred by, among other statutes, MCL 257.625a. These rules are binding regulations, but they are a different form of authority than a statute or a judicial decision, and it is important to keep that distinction in mind when evaluating what consequence follows from a violation.
The rules classify breath test operators by function. A Class III operator is an operator certified to conduct a subject test with an evidential breath testing instrument, such as the Intoxilyzer 9000. Mich Admin Code, R 325.2651(1)(h). The rules define "certified" to mean that the operator completed the required training and possesses a certificate of training. Mich Admin Code, R 325.2651(1)(d).
The operative requirement appears in Mich Admin Code, R 325.2655(a), which provides: "Except as provided otherwise in these rules, evidential breath alcohol test instruments must be operated by appropriate class operators who are certified in accordance with R 325.2658." The certification requirement also appears in the observation-period rule. Before an evidential breath sample is collected, the subject must be observed for not less than 15 minutes by at least one appropriate class operator certified in accordance with R 325.2658. Mich Admin Code, R 325.2655(e).
Biennial Recertification and Lapsed Certifications
Under Mich Admin Code, R 325.2658(1), a Class III operator certified after January 1, 2022, must recertify every two years to maintain that certification. Class III operators certified before that date were required to recertify before December 31, 2023, and every two years after that. The rule further provides that a Class III operator who fails to recertify before the current certification expires must attend and successfully complete the Class III operator training described in R 325.2658(2)(c). That subrule describes the full Class III certification requirements, which include completing an approved training course, passing a written examination with a minimum score of 70 percent, and demonstrating proficiency in the use of an evidential breath testing instrument.
This structure explains why the refresher-course issue matters. An officer who completes a refresher course after his or her certification has already expired may hold a document showing course completion. Under the MSP's December 2025 notice, however, that refresher is considered invalid and the officer is not certified. The Grand Traverse County press release described exactly that scenario. For that reason, a certificate or card in the officer's possession is not necessarily the end of the inquiry. The dates of the operator's initial certification, each recertification, and the type of course completed must be compared with the date of the test.
The rules also contain a qualification that should not be overlooked. R 325.2658(1) states: "An operator whose certification has lapsed can testify about incidents that occurred during their valid certification period." The relevant question, therefore, is not whether the operator is certified at the time of trial. It is whether the operator was validly certified on the date the breath test was administered.
Certification, Admissibility, and the Accuracy of the Number
Two separate questions are easily blurred in discussions of this subject. The first is whether a breath-test result obtained by an uncertified operator may be admitted into evidence. The second is whether the number itself is analytically accurate.
The Grand Traverse County prosecutor's letter addresses the first question and states the office's position that such results are not admissible. That is a significant statement from the prosecuting attorney responsible for those cases, and it shaped how the affected cases were handled. It is not, however, a judicial ruling, and it does not by itself establish how every Michigan court will resolve every certification dispute. The rules impose the certification requirement, but the consequence of noncompliance in a particular case is ultimately a legal question for the court, decided on the specific record and the governing law.
The second question is different. A lapsed certification does not, by itself, prove that the instrument malfunctioned or that the reported number was wrong. The certification requirement exists because the rules require that evidential breath testing be conducted by trained and qualified operators following department-approved procedures. Mich Admin Code, R 325.2655(a), (b). When that foundation is missing, the issue is whether the result may properly be used as evidence, not merely whether the instrument happened to produce a plausible number.
It is also worth noting that a breath-test problem does not necessarily end a prosecution. As the Grand Traverse County letter indicates, a prosecutor may evaluate whether other evidence of intoxication or impairment exists independently of the breath result. Officer observations, driving behavior, statements, field sobriety testing, and any blood test may all become more important if a breath result is excluded or withdrawn. Each of those categories of evidence carries its own legal and scientific questions.
The "Interferent Detected" Message
The MSP's December 2025 notice addressed a second issue that also deserves attention. In certain cases, an Intoxilyzer 9000 test may terminate with the following printed exception message:
"Test stopped by instrument. An interferent was detected in the subject's breath sample. Do not attempt to conduct another breath test with this subject. It is recommended that a blood sample be obtained."
The MSP characterizes this message as confirmation that the instrument is functioning properly and that a built-in safeguard was activated because of a variable in the subject's breath sample or the testing environment. The notice acknowledges, however, that the instruction does not physically prevent the operator from starting another breath test on the same subject. The MSP stated that if a subsequent breath test is performed despite the instruction, the printed reports from all tests conducted on the subject must be retained and provided to the appropriate parties.
From a defense perspective, the practical point is straightforward. A single printed result does not necessarily tell the whole story of what happened at the instrument. If an earlier test ended with an interferent message, that report is part of the record of the testing sequence. Whether a later test was conducted consistently with department-approved procedures, and what weight or admissibility questions follow, depends on what the full set of records shows.
What I Examine When an Intoxilyzer 9000 Result Is Part of the Case
When I evaluate an Intoxilyzer 9000 result, the operator's certification is now one of the first things I check. The printed test report shows the certification date the operator entered. Because the instrument cannot verify that entry, I compare it with the MSP Training Division's certification records for that operator, including the date of initial certification, each recertification, and whether any course taken after an expiration date was a refresher course or the full Class III training.
I also look at who conducted the 15-minute observation period. If more than one officer participated in the observation or the test, the certification status of each officer may matter under R 325.2655(e). The rules permit the observation period to be conducted by more than one operator working in concert, but each must be an appropriate class operator certified under R 325.2658.
Beyond certification, I request every printed report generated for the subject during the testing sequence, not just the report attached to the police file. The rules require records of operation, analyses, and results to be maintained at the instrument location as the department prescribes. Mich Admin Code, R 325.2655(c). Those records, together with body-camera and jail video, booking records, and the officer's report, often show the timing and sequence of events more reliably than any single document.
The history of breath testing supports this kind of careful review. A 2025 article by A. Olson and C. Ramsay in Forensic Science International: Synergy, titled "Errors in toxicology testing and the need for full discovery," surveyed breath and toxicology errors across many jurisdictions. The authors reported that many errors persisted for years and that discovery of those errors often came from sources outside the laboratories' internal quality controls. The article also recounted Michigan's own 2020 suspension of DataMaster DMT breath testing, which followed problems with the maintenance and calibration of the instruments and evidence of forged calibration records. The Grand Traverse County problem involves operator certification rather than instrument calibration, but the lesson is similar: the reliability of a breath-testing program depends on records that someone must actually check.
Cases That Are Already Closed
The Grand Traverse County letter stated that many of the affected cases had already been adjudicated, that the prosecutor's office would send letters to defendants and defense counsel explaining what happened in each closed case, and that the office would not object to plea withdrawal based on the invalid Intoxilyzer results. A prosecutor's agreement not to object is significant, but it does not by itself vacate a conviction. A defendant who wishes to pursue relief must still take action in the case, and the court must act on that request.
The Sheriff's Office also acknowledged that the problem may not be limited to Grand Traverse County. The MSP's December 2025 notice was addressed to agencies statewide, and its description of the instrument's inability to verify operator credentials was not limited to any one county. Anyone with a pending or past Michigan OWI case involving an Intoxilyzer 9000 result may reasonably want the operator's certification history reviewed, even if no agency has announced a problem.
Why the Records Matter
Breath-test cases are often presented as though the printed number answers every question. The Grand Traverse County events show that the number is only as sound as the procedures and qualifications behind it. Michigan's administrative rules require certified operators, require biennial recertification, and require full Class III training after a lapse. The MSP has told agencies that the instrument cannot confirm whether the operator who typed in a certification date was actually certified.
Small factual differences can change the analysis considerably. An operator certified the day before a test stands in a very different position from one whose certification expired a week earlier. A refresher course taken before expiration is treated differently from one taken after. A complete set of printouts may reveal a testing sequence that a single report does not. Those questions can be answered only by examining the test records, certification records, police reports, recordings, and other evidence in the case, and then measuring that record against the governing law.
