DC Prosecutors Won't Use Breath Test Results [HERE] From [HERE] WASHINGTON - Three D.C. police officers are claiming they were told not to answer certain questions about problems with the District's breathalyzers while under oath in D.C. Superior Court. All three say the requests came from prosecutors working for the D.C. office of the Attorney General.

Instead of doing what they were asked to do the officers say they told the truth. The officer’s claims are included in a request for an investigation sent to the Attorney General, the City Council and the Inspector General by the Fraternal Order of Police. So far, two of the three have declined the request.

The officer’s believe they were asked to lie and took their stories to the police union. One sent a letter to the Chief of Police. The three officers have been identified by the police union as Ben Fetting, Jose Rodriguez and Andrew Zabavsky, a trio responsible for hundreds of DUI arrests.

But in recent months the three claim they've been asked by prosecutors to keep their mouths shut.

According to the union, on September 27, 2010, Officer (Ben) Fetting was scheduled to testify in a DUI trial. Attorney Tamara Barnett of the (Office of the Attorney General) suggested that officer Fetting not answer certain questions about the certification of the intoximeters.

Officer Fetting declined and when questioned and answered truthfully that he was aware that the intoximeters had not been approved by the (Office of the Chief Medical Examiner).

The complaint goes on to say, both Officer (Jose) Rodriguez and (Andrew) Zabavsky were advised by the (Office of the Attorney General) to limit their testimony at DUI trials with regards to the problems with the intoxilyzers.

They were told not to answer questions about when they became aware of the problems with the equipment and told to say that they were not familiar with the problems or investigations even if they did know the answer.

Both officers indicated they were unwilling to alter their testimony or perjure themselves.

"The OAG was asking these officers not to tell the truth when they were on the stand," said FOP Chairman Kristopher Baumann in an interview Thursday.

"They told them to misrepresent their knowledge about the problems with our DUI program, they asked them not to provide facts if asked about those facts to the defense attorneys or the judges and the officers did exactly what they were supposed to do and they said “no."

The District’s alcohol testing program has been in chaos for over a year after a whistle blower claimed the breathalyzers hadn't been tested for accuracy for a decade or more.

Defense Attorney David Benowitz says he's aware of the officer’s claims and agrees there should be an investigation, "If a lawyer is suggesting that a sworn police officer not volunteer information if they are asked about it under oath? That’s obstruction of justice, that's an attempt to influence a witness in a way that would persuade a fact finder to find a verdict that's not true."

Late Thursday FOX 5 received a statement from the Attorney General’s Office on the officer’s claims.