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.
Washington Affidavit In support of Motion in Liming to Preclude any Evidence of Breathalyzer Test — DUI: An affidavit in support of a motion in liming to preclude any evidence of a breathalyzer test is a legal document used in Washington State in DUI cases. It seeks to exclude any evidence related to the breathalyzer test from being presented at trial. This motion can be filed by the defense attorney on behalf of the defendant, aiming to challenge the admissibility and credibility of the breathalyzer test results. This affidavit serves as a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the reasons why the court should exclude the breathalyzer test evidence. It must provide relevant facts, legal arguments, and case precedents to support the motion. The specific components of this affidavit may include: 1. Case Information: Start with the defendant's name, case number, and court details to establish the context. 2. Expert Testimony Challenge: Explain why the defense intends to challenge the credibility and reliability of the breathalyzer test results. Mention any expert witness that might be called to testify about the inaccuracies or potential issues associated with the test. 3. Officer's Qualifications and Training: Highlight any deficiencies or lack of proper training by the law enforcement officer who administered the breathalyzer test. This could include proof of expired certifications, inability to demonstrate proper protocol, or conflicting procedures used during the test. 4. Equipment Maintenance and Calibration: Establish potential weaknesses in maintaining and calibrating the breathalyzer equipment. Detail any irregularities or incomplete records of inspections, repairs, or calibration checks that may call into question the accuracy of the results. 5. Chain of Custody: Demonstrate any shortcomings in the handling and storage of the breathalyzer sample, such as gaps in the documentation or improper transportation protocols. These issues can create doubts about the reliability and trustworthiness of the sample analyzed by the machine. 6. Potential Interference and Contamination: Argue any circumstances that could have affected the breathalyzer test accuracy, such as residual mouth alcohol, interfering substances, or medical conditions that could have influenced the results. 7. Legal Basis: Cite relevant Washington State laws, regulations, and legal precedent to support the argument that the breathalyzer evidence should be excluded. These may include statutes regarding test refusal, the validity of the search and seizure, or due process violations. 8. Conclusion: Summarize the main points of the affidavit and reiterate the request to exclude the breathalyzer test evidence from being presented at trial. Different types or variations of this affidavit might include variations in legal arguments, specific case facts, or additional challenges to the breathalyzer test results particular to an individual case. However, the core purpose is to seek the exclusion of breathalyzer test evidence in DUI cases based on compelling reasons and legal grounds.
