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.
Title: Understanding South Dakota Motion In Liming to Exclude Breathalyzer Results for Failure to Follow Observation Protocols — DUI Introduction: In South Dakota, a Motion In Liming to Exclude Breathalyzer Results for Failure to Follow Observation Protocols in DUI cases can be a critical tool for defendants. This motion challenges the admissibility of breathalyzer test results due to violations and non-compliance with observation protocols. By understanding the concept and potential types of this motion, defendants can better navigate DUI cases. Keywords: South Dakota, Motion In Liming, Exclude Breathalyzer Results, Failure to Follow Observation Protocols, DUI 1. Overview of South Dakota Motion In Liming: The South Dakota Motion In Liming is a legal tool used by defense attorneys to request the court to exclude certain evidence from being presented to the jury or considered during trial. Specifically, it can be filed to challenge the admissibility of breathalyzer test results when observation protocols were not followed in DUI cases. 2. Failure to Follow Observation Protocols: Observation protocols are put in place to ensure accurate and reliable breathalyzer test results. These protocols dictate the observation period of the suspect before administering the test, including continuous visual monitoring to prevent interference or manipulation. Failure to follow observation protocols could potentially lead to inaccurate test results. 3. Types of South Dakota Motion In Liming to Exclude Breathalyzer Results: a. Motion In Liming based on Lack of Continuous Visual Monitoring: This motion argues that the breathalyzer results should be excluded if it can be proven that the officer administering the test did not continuously visually monitor the suspect during the mandatory observation period. b. Motion In Liming due to Other Violations of Observation Protocols: Apart from continuous visual monitoring, there could be other specific protocols that were not followed, such as failure to properly document the observation period, failure to conduct the test within the required time frame, or failure to comply with equipment calibration requirements. Defendants can file motions based on these violations too. 4. Legal Arguments for Exclusion of Breathalyzer Results: a. Inherent unreliability of unobserved breathalyzer tests: The defense may argue that a lack of proper observation casts doubt on the reliability and validity of the breathalyzer test results, potentially confusing the jury and violating the defendant's right to a fair trial. b. Violation of Fourth Amendment rights: The defense may argue that failure to follow observation protocols constitutes an unlawful search and seizure, violating the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. Conclusion: When facing DUI charges, defendants in South Dakota can utilize a Motion In Liming to Exclude Breathalyzer Results for Failure to Follow Observation Protocols. By understanding the concept and potential types of this motion, defendants can effectively challenge the admissibility of breathalyzer test results, potentially weakening the prosecution's case and improving their chances of a favorable outcome.
