Ohio is now challenging the admissibility of the results of the Intoxilyzer 8000 in an Athens County Municipal Court, according to athensnews.com. An evidentiary hearing is being held in one case to determine if the machine’s results are accurate, reliable, and therefore admissible.
Thomas E. Workman, a Massachusetts attorney who also has a master’s degree in electrical engineering, testified at the hearing. He said the data suggested some officers may be ignoring repeated failure results that should indicate they need to pull the machine out of service. Instead they are doing multiple tests until they get usable results.
He also suggested that the machine’s design and components make it more prone than other testers to error. It may misreport something else as alcohol, making the test results higher than the actual blood alcohol content of the subject. Heat, humidity, and radio interference can also affect the accuracy.
If the results of the Intoxilyzer 8000 are admitted into evidence and they are inaccurate unjust drunk driving convictions may result. If the Ohio courts determine that the Intoxilyzer 8000 test results are inaccurate, unreliable, and not inadmissible, other states such as California should also challenge the admissibility of these results.
If you were charged with drunk driving after giving a breath sample on an Intoxilyzer 8000 machine, you need to speak to The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman. For a free, confidential case evaluation, use the “Contact Us” form on this page or call 619-260-1122 today.