Introduction

Recent discussions about the role of breathalyzers in legal proceedings have raised questions about their reliability and admissibility in court. In countries such as the UK, breathalyzers play a crucial role in detecting and penalizing drink driving, yet their use in court environments remains a subject of debate. This article explores why breathalyzers are commonly used by law enforcement but have specific limitations when it comes to their use in court.

Common Misunderstandings

Many individuals confuse the use of breathalyzers in the field with their application in court. Similarly, there has been confusion with the use of polygraph machines or lie detectors. This article aims to clarify these points by explaining why breathalyzers are widely used in legal proceedings but under specific conditions.

Role of Breathalyzers in Field Testing

Portable handheld breathalyzers are extensively used by police officers as a tool to establish probable cause. These devices provide a quick and reliable way to determine whether a driver has consumed alcohol above the legal limit.[1] By using this information, law enforcement can request further testing to confirm the alcohol level, which can then be used as evidence in court.

The primary advantage of portable breathalyzers is their convenience and speed. They offer a preliminary assessment, enabling officers to make informed decisions quickly and efficiently. However, due to their inherent limitations, they are not typically admissible in court without additional verification.[2]

Admissibility in Court

Larger, more sophisticated breathalyzers used in police stations often provide results that can be used in court. The key difference lies in the precision, technological reliability, and the strict protocols that must be followed when using these devices.[3] Legal standards require the machines to be accurate, reproducible, and properly operated to ensure reliable evidence.

In the United States, for instance, states have implemented rigorous testing standards. For example, New Jersey switched from the Breathalyzer machine to the Draeger Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C, which required the state courts to establish reliability through the Frye standard.[4] This standard requires all scientific evidence to be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community before it can be admitted in court.

The Frye standard involves extensive hearings and expert testimony to determine the reliability of the breathalyzer. The court must evaluate factors such as the machine's accuracy, consistency, and the qualifications of the operator. Only after these stringent measures are met can the results be used as evidence.[5]

Key Features and Conditions for Admissibility

For breathalyzers to be admissible in court, several key elements must be demonstrated:

Proper Calibration: Breathalyzers must be regularly calibrated to ensure they adhere to the required standards. Proper calibration is crucial to maintaining the accuracy of the device.[6] Operator Qualifications: The operator of the breathalyzer must have the necessary qualifications and training to ensure the test is conducted correctly.[7] Foundational Documents: These documents, which include calibration reports, operational records, and the credentials of the operator, must be provided to the court. These documents serve to establish the reliability of the test and the operator's competence.[8] Chain of Custody: Strict protocols must be followed to maintain the integrity of the evidence from the moment the breathalyzer test is conducted until the results are presented in court.[9]

Conclusion

In summary, while breathalyzers are routinely used by law enforcement to identify potential DUI offenders, their use in court requires a higher standard of reliability and procedural adherence. Breathalyzers, when properly calibrated and operated, can be a valuable tool in establishing the facts necessary for legal proceedings. However, their admissibility in court hinges on meeting stringent standards that ensure the evidence is both accurate and reliable.

References

[1] [1], [2] [2], [3] [3], [4] [4], [5] [5], [6] [6], [7] [7], [8] [8], [9] [9]