I'm not going to say it's impossible, but given that I run this testing as well, I'd need to know a WHOLE LOT MORE than just what's told here. Now that being said......let's just suppose for the sake of argument the test is skewed and doubled the actual result. That's STILL a .38, which is next-level drunk (I get these all the time, though, about once a month or so).
I'm sure her lawyer will have some fun - probably - with citation after citation of this being impossible ("If this were true, she would be dead").
If I got a result like that, I'd be re-verifying instrument QC and calibration and re-running the sample (probably with multiple dilution factors to get result similarity) before I turned it out.
I reiterate - I'm NOT saying it's impossible or even wrong - I'm just saying my ears perk up with a high level of suspicion.
Let me also add that paper looks a bit suspicious. Range of 0.000?? Most instruments can't test that low, which is why OURS turns out the result of <3.0 for people who haven't been drinking (using the calculation, that's less than .01). And "range", what kind of range? Analytical? Reference? Expected? That also makes a difference.
And I seriously doubt this went to state for testing. It says this happened on FRIDAY - have you EVER known of something drawn on Friday where we have the state tox results on the following Monday?
Based on the other things it says - this guy has priors plus beer cans in the car plus his uh "courage" in trying to outrun the pole-lease, I have no doubt he was drunk as the proverbial skunk. I'm just curious as to how we get from A to B.
Also....how did that result get out in public? What's the protocol and is that okay?