The purpose of the breathalyzer test is to measure a person's blood alcohol content (BAC). The Breathalyzer, which is the most commonly used BAC tester today, was invented in 1954. It detects and measures the level of alcohol on a person's breath with the use of a chemical reaction. A Breathalyzer test kit contains several vials of chemicals of differing colors that change color when they come into contact with alcohol. The color changes indicate the amount of alcohol.
Breathalyzer test results can be challenged in court; it is possible for a law enforcement officer to administer the test incorrectly. This form is a generic example that may be referred to when preparing such a form for your particular state. It is for illustrative purposes only. Local laws should be consulted to determine any specific requirements for such a form in a particular jurisdiction.
Hawaii Motion In Liming to Exclude Breathalyzer Results for Failure to Follow Observation Protocols — DUI In Hawaii, when facing a DUI charge, the defense may utilize a powerful legal tool known as a Motion In Liming to Exclude Breathalyzer Results for Failure to Follow Observation Protocols. This motion can be used in situations where law enforcement failed to adhere to proper observation protocols while administering the breathalyzer test, thereby compromising the accuracy and reliability of the results obtained. Breathalyzer tests are commonly used to determine the blood alcohol content (BAC) of a suspected DUI offender. However, strict guidelines and protocols must be followed during the administration of these tests to ensure valid and credible results. Failure to follow these observation protocols may introduce doubt regarding the accuracy of the breathalyzer readings. There are several types of Hawaii Motion In Liming to Exclude Breathalyzer Results for Failure to Follow Observation Protocols — DUI that can be explored: 1. Insufficient Observation Time: The defense argues that the arresting officer failed to observe the defendant for the required minimum observation period, generally 20 minutes. This period allows for the dissipation of any residual substances in the mouth that could affect the breathalyzer readings, thereby compromising the accuracy of the results. 2. Inadequate Officer Training: This motion challenges the officer's qualification and expertise in administering breathalyzer tests. The defense may argue that the officer received improper training or lacked the necessary knowledge to follow proper observation protocols. This can raise doubts about the reliability of the test results. 3. Failure to Document Observation: The defense can assert that the officer did not accurately document the observation period in the official police report. This lack of documentation can cast doubt on whether proper protocols were followed and can be used to exclude the breathalyzer results as evidence. 4. Failure to Maintain Continuous Observation: The defense argues that the officer did not maintain continuous observation of the defendant during the required observation period. This can include distractions, interruptions, or leaving the defendant unattended. By highlighting the lack of continuous observation, the defense can challenge the reliability of the breathalyzer results. 5. Breach of Privacy: This motion asserts that the officer violated the defendant's right to privacy during the observation period, which is legally protected. The defense may challenge any actions taken by the officer that invaded the defendant's privacy rights, such as denying bathroom access or conducting excessive physical contact. 6. Failure to Properly Calibrate Equipment: This type of motion challenges the accuracy of the breathalyzer equipment itself. The defense may argue that the device used was not properly calibrated or maintained, raising doubts about the reliability of the results obtained. By utilizing these various types of motions, defendants in Hawaii can effectively challenge the admissibility of breathalyzer results in DUI cases. These motions aim to exclude unreliable evidence from being presented in court, potentially weakening the prosecution's case and improving the defendant's chances of a favorable outcome.
