Intoxilyzer Breath Test Utah DUI Defense Attorney

Salt Lake City DUI Defense Lawyer

Utah DUI Case Law

Intoxilyzer 5000 / 8000 – Certified Breath Test Equipment

According to the NHTSA, the weight of the chemical test is "presumptive of alcohol influence, not conclusive." NHTSA, DWI Detection and Standardize field Sobriety Testing, Student Manual, (2004 Ed.) p. III-3.

To demonstrate this fact, the NHTSA gives two examples:

Example I

A driver is arrested for [DUI]. A chemical test administered to the driver shows a BAC of 0.13. At the subsequent trial, the chemical test-evidence is introduced. In addition, the arresting officer testifies about the driver’s appearance, behavior and driving. The testimony is sketchy, confused and unclear.

Another witness testifies that the driver drove, behaved and spoke normally. The jury finds the driver not guilty of [DUI].

Example II

A driver is arrested for [DUI]. A chemical test administered to the driver shows a BAC of 0.05. At the subsequent trial, the chemical test evidence is introduced. In addition, the arresting officer testifies about the driver’s appearance, slurred speech, impaired driving and inability to perform divided attention field sobriety tests. The testimony is clear and descriptive. The court finds the driver guilty of [DUI], even though he is below .08.

"The difference in the outcomes in the two examples cited is directly attributable to the evidence other than the chemical test evidence presented in court.

Remember that the chemical test provides presumptive evidence of alcohol influence; it does not provide conclusive evidence. While the ‘legal limit’ in a given jurisdiction may be 0.08/0.10 BAC, many people will demonstrate impaired driving ability long before that ‘limit’ is reach." Id., at III-3 – III-4.

In Utah, the DUI laws follow these principles.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the principle purpose of enacting Implied Consent Laws is to "encourage people arrested for DWI [and DUI] to submit to a chemical test to provide scientific evidence of alcohol influence." NHTSA, DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, Student Manual (2004 Ed.) p. III-2.

A. Intoxilyzer 5000 / 8000

When the Standardized procedures were originally developed, the lawful limit was not 0.08 BAC. Instead the BAC was 0.10. The former level was easy to rely on at that time because the 0.10 appeared to be scientifically supported. The NHTSA states in its manual impairment citing to the 0.10 BAC level. The logic is that the science could not change with raising considerable doubt about the reliability of the science used itself. Therefore, the NHTSA was required to remain true to its studies and findings thus far, despite the various state’s decisions to lower their legal limits to 0.08 BAC. See 2004 Manual, pp. VII-3, VII-6, VII-7.

Until the Intoxilyzer 8000 series chemical test equipment went into service, the Intoxilyzer 5000 was the chemical test workhorse for decades. As I have had officers explain to me, the only difference between the 5000 and 8000 is that the 8000 permits the entry of a name for printout of the ticket printed by the machine of the test results.

When a driver is asked to submit a sample of breath, the driver would breathe into a tube and the machine analyzes the sample. The Intoxilyzers must be calibrated and certified. Of course, those who do this are nearly never brought to court by the prosecutor.

Utah Code Ann. § 41-6a-515 (Supp. 2010) requires the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety to establish standards for the administration and interpretation of chemical analysis of a person’s breath – this is referring to the Intoxilyzer. Under R714-500 of the Utah Administrative Code, the Commissioner has established standards. Provided therein is a section on Operator Certification, Program Certification, Equipment Certification, and Technician Certification.

In order for the subsequent breath-test evidence to be admissible, the Operator has to be in possession of a valid certification, the technician must certify that the equipment function properly prior to and subsequent to the taking of the breath sample. If these certifications are all in place, and the equipment check list was filled properly by the operator, and the Intoxilyzer printout does not display any error message, and the Baker rule was complied with by the arresting officer, then the test result is admissible at the Driver License Division. Moreover, according to Rule 15 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure and Utah Code Ann. § 41-6a-515, then the test result may be admitted.

Again, bear in mind that the test result provides merely a presumption of impairment and not conclusive evidence of impairment.