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.
Content: A motion in liming is a legal strategy employed by attorneys to exclude certain evidence from being presented during trial. In the case of DUI offenses in New Jersey, one type of motion in liming that can be filed is to exclude breathalyzer results due to the failure of law enforcement officers to follow observation protocols. When a person is arrested for DUI in New Jersey, one of the common procedures employed to determine their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is through the use of a breathalyzer test. However, New Jersey law requires that certain observation protocols be followed by the arresting officer before administering the breathalyzer test. If the observation protocols are not followed precisely, it can cast doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the breathalyzer results. As a result, defense attorneys can file a motion in liming to exclude these results from being presented as evidence during trial. The purpose of the motion is to argue that the breathalyzer results should be excluded as they were obtained in violation of the defendant's rights and therefore should not be admissible in court. By excluding this evidence, the defense aims to weaken the prosecution's case and increase the chances of a positive outcome for the defendant. The motion in liming to exclude breathalyzer results for failure to follow observation protocols is an essential part of DUI defense in New Jersey. It challenges the legitimacy and credibility of the evidence against the defendant, as it argues that proper procedures were not followed during the arrest and testing process. Different variations of the motion in liming to exclude breathalyzer results for failure to follow observation protocols may include: 1. Motion in Liming to Exclude Breathalyzer Results for Failure to Follow Pre-Test Waiting Period: The defendant's attorney can argue that the officer did not adhere to the required waiting period before administering the breathalyzer test. This waiting period is essential to ensure that any residual mouth alcohol is dissipated, as it may affect the accuracy of the results. 2. Motion in Liming to Exclude Breathalyzer Results for Failure to Observe the Defendant Continuously: The defense can claim that the arresting officer did not continuously observe the defendant for the required period before administering the breathalyzer test. Continuous observation is crucial to prevent any interference that could affect the accuracy of the results, such as the defendant regurgitating or ingesting substances that could influence the breathalyzer readings. 3. Motion in Liming to Exclude Breathalyzer Results for Failure to Follow Certification and Calibration Procedures: This motion argues that the breathalyzer device used for testing was not properly calibrated or certified by authorized personnel. The defense can challenge the accuracy and reliability of the equipment to question the validity of the breathalyzer results. In conclusion, a motion in liming to exclude breathalyzer results for failure to follow observation protocols is a powerful legal tactic in DUI defense in New Jersey. By challenging the admissibility of breathalyzer results due to potential violations of observation protocols, defense attorneys aim to weaken the prosecution's case and improve the chances of a favorable outcome for the defendant. Different variations of this motion may focus on waiting periods, continuous observation, and certification and calibration procedures.
