Boating fatality could lead to first legal challenge of state's urine test

Suspect contends DEP use of urinalysis not proof of intoxication

The case of a Madison man charged in connection with a boating fatality on the Connecticut River last year could lead to the first test in Connecticut of the admissibility of urine tests to prosecute drunken drivers (and boaters).

New London judge Matthew E. Frechette listened this week to two days of testimony in the case of 46-year-old Gregory T. Siege, whose unmanned, runaway boat struck a sailboat in Old Lyme, killing one of its passengers and injuring the others.

Siege is charged with second-degree manslaughter, reckless endangerment, assault and boating under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Department of Environmental Protection officers and a state trooper testified that Siege, who was pulled from the water by a passing boater, admitted drinking Scotch whisky before the incident and that he smelled of alcohol and appeared dazed. They said he failed a series of field-sobriety tests administered at the Old Saybrook town dock.

But Siege's attorney, Charles E. Tiernan III, says state laws on driving and boating under the influence require scientific proof of intoxication and that the method of testing used by the Department of Environmental Protection - urinalysis - is unreliable in determining blood-alcohol content. In anticipation of Siege's trial, he is seeking to suppress the results of field-sobriety tests and chemical tests taken after the July 8, 2007, accident.

Urine tests showed Siege had an alcohol concentration of 0.17 percent about two hours after the crash and a level of 0.15 percent about 30 minutes after that. Under state law, 0.08 percent is the limit. Tiernan contends the DEP failed to take the urine sample from Siege within the two-hour time limit - they missed by about 10 minutes, according to court testimony - and that urine test results are not valid scientific evidence of blood-alcohol content.

Tiernan wants the judge to order a so-called "Porter hearing" at which the state would be required to prove the validity of a urine test. A 1997 case involving arsonist Christian Porter became the seminal case to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence after the state Supreme Court ruled that polygraphs used during the investigation were unreliable and not admissible.

"At this point we're requesting that the court require the state, in order to get these (urine) tests into evidence, to present evidence and meet a burden to establish that this method of testing to determine someone's blood-alcohol content is scientifically accepted," Tiernan said Wednesday after the hearing had concluded. "There's never been a hearing that I'm aware of in Connecticut that is consistent with the requirements set out in the Porter case."

Prosecutor Sarah E. Steere contends the DEP officers, who were assisted that day by Old Saybrook police and state police, took into consideration "the totality of the situation," observing Siege at the scene and performing valid tests before making a proper arrest.

Police have the option of administering breath, blood or urine tests when they suspect somebody of driving or boating under the influence of alcohol or drugs. They often administer the breath test at the scene of a traffic stop using a machine called an Intolilyzer. Blood tests, which must be conducted by a qualified person, are often taken at a hospital following a serious accident and are widely considered the most reliable method of determining blood-alcohol content. The police often opt to take a urine test if they suspect somebody is under the influence of illegal narcotics. The urine test, in Siege's case, was conducted at the Old Saybrook Police Department using collection cups and other materials provided by the state.

Alcohol is filtered out of the blood and concentrated into the urine. Dr. Robert H. Powers, director of the state's toxicology laboratory, said urine test results may or may not be reflective of what is in a person's bloodstream at the time the sample is collected. He said he tells prosecutors and defense attorneys, "We can use urine results to explain impairment, but not to infer impairment."

Judge Frechette will render a decision on Siege's suppression motions sometime after Jan. 19, when briefs from the attorneys are due.

Siege, a longtime boater who once worked in the marine industry, sat quietly in court this week as witnesses recounted the tragic events of that July day. He fell off his 20-foot motorboat after navigating through the Amtrak railroad bridge between Old Lyme and Old Saybrook. The unmanned boat, a center-console Edgewater with a 200-horsepower motor, sliced through a sailboat. Passenger Susan Brandes, 53, of South Windsor, died of multiple blunt trauma injuries, and the three other passengers were injured.

The boat continued to circle out of control for more than a half hour after Siege fell out. He was not using a kill switch, a device that shuts the boat down if the driver falls out.

K.FLORIN@THEDAY.COM

The Day web-site: http://www.theday.com