CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Opinion & Scientific Evidence
......Forensic Issues
.........Criminal
............Breathalyzers - Intoximeter
 17 Cards On This Topic:
  • Trial court did not err by considering, in addition to breath and blood test results, circumstantial evidence of intoxication to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that P drove with a BAC at or above 0.08%.
  • Trial court properly excluded expert testimony challenging the reliability of breath-alcohol testing machines with respect to the charge of driving while having a proscribed alcohol concentration.
  • Competent evidence about partition ratio variability may be admitted to defend against generic DUI charge, as relevant to rebut presumption of intoxication in VC 23610.
  • Trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting PAS test results even though officer did not substantially comply with procedural requirements.
  • Variability of partition ratios irrelevant and inadmissible in DUI; Veh. Code §23152 (b) defines offense solely on basis of grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
  • Trial court erred in ruling the presumptive validity of BAC test results could be rebutted by E's testimony that all "Intoxilyzer 5000" results have an inherent margin-of-error and might give a high BAC reading.
  • After P rebutted DMV's prima facie showing with evidence BAC test results were inaccurate, burden shifted to DMV, which failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence the test results were reliable.
  • Court’s factual determination as to slight weight of PAS test evidence was supported by substantial evidence, and judgment setting aside P’s license suspension affirmed.
  • Trial court did not err in denying D's pretrial motion to exclude PAS test results; officer's hearsay testimony re label on test solution properly allowed as testimony of expert.
  • Title 17 does not require a single person to observe the breath test subject for 15 minutes prior to test.
  • Requirement that breath test subject not perform certain physical actions for 15 minutes before breath sample collection does not require officer ••observing•• the subject to be certified in the use of the breath test device.
  • PAS test results admissible to prove D’s guilt if proper foundation laid, but test does not satisfy D’s obligation to submit to a subsequent blood, urine or breath test after DUI arrest.
  • "Continuous observation" before administering DUI breath test does not mean officer must keep eyes focused on the subject for an uninterrupted 15-minute period.
  • Preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) device is simply form of breath testing device and thus not required to satisfy Kelly/Frye.
  • No due process or equal protection violation in refusing evidence on variability between blood alcohol and breath alcohol measurements.
  • Foundation for reliability of breathalyzer results must be established either by showing licensure or meeting requirements of People v. Adams.
  • Requirements for admission of results from breathalyzer.


    •