Search Results for: intoxilyzer 8000

I thought it was dead. In the jurisdictions where I handle OVI cases, I had not seen the Intoxilyzer 8000 used for years. To my surprise, I recently received discovery materials which showed my client’s breath test was done on an I-8000. Given the challenges faced by this machine when it was first brought to […]

For the first time, an appellate court in Central Ohio addressed whether evidence from an Intoxilyzer 8000 is admissible in an O.V.I./D.U.I. trial. The court of appeals ultimately decided that the defendant is prohibited from challenging the general reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000, so the results of that machine’s breath tests are admissible. The court’s […]

Previous posts in this blog discussed developments with the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath-testing machine. On May 30, 2011, the post summarized the Gerome case in Athens. In Gerome, the judge held the defendant is permitted to introduce evidence of factors affecting the breath test results. Another post reported the disappearing Intoxilyzer 8000 records maintained by the […]

The State of Ohio may be regretting its $6.4 million purchase of Intoxilyzer 8000 breath-testing machines. In State v. Gerome, the judge wrote a decision critical of the Intoxilyzer 8000 that stated the machine is “capable of producing an inaccurate result.” In State v. Reid, the judge decided the Intoxilyzer 8000 result was not even […]

The last post of this blog discussed the Gerome case in Athens, Ohio. In that case, which is still pending, the judge will make decisions about the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 and whether a defendant must be given an opportunity to challenge the breath test’s general reliability at trial. In a similar case in […]

In previous posts, this blog has discussed two separate but related issues. The post on May 3, 2010 explained that defendants in Ohio O.V.I. cases do not have the ability to challenge the general reliability of breath testing machines at trial due to the holding in State v. Vega. The post on May 29, 2010 […]

In a previous post, I discussed the Intoxilyzer 8000. The Ohio Department of Health made a controversial purchase of 7000 of these breath-testing machines, and a few are being used in central Ohio D.U.I./O.V.I. cases. In the previous post, I said I would give developments from my first 8000 case.

Breath-testing machines have been used for O.V.I. (D.U.I.) in Ohio for decades. Until recently, the breath-testing instruments approved by the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) were the BAC Datamaster and the Intoxilyzer 5000. In 2009, the Ohio Department of Health approved the use of the Intoxilyzer 8000. In addition, the ODH purchased 700 Intoxilyzer 8000s, […]

But for a technical legal issue that may only be interesting to an Ohio DUI/OVI lawyer, the case of State v. McMahon would be pretty generic. An officer pulled him over for speeding, noticed the odor of alcohol, administered field sobriety tests, arrested him, gave him a breath test on an Intoxilyzer 8000, and charged […]

Defense attorneys and forensic experts have claimed for years breath-testing machines are unreliable. Those claims tend to fall on deaf ears due to the inherent bias of the source: defense attorneys are advocates for clients accused of crimes based on the results of the machines. Recently, however, more objective sources investigated the reliability of alcohol […]

Contact Information