a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

intoxilyzer Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "intoxilyzer"

Intoxilyzer 8000 Biased Against Americans

The Intoxilyzer 8000 is used in Europe under the brand name Lion.  On their website [HERE] they describe the process of breath alcohol physiology.  There is one glaring difference however. They use a 2300:1 ratio instead of a 2100:1 ratio.  So? Example: If you blew a into the Lion (Intoxilyzer) 8000 with of 2300: 1 partition ratio, and the machine reported BrAC results of .070 then you blew into the machine with a 2100: 1 partition ratio you would be .080 or higher. (thanks to DUIstopped.us for this example). If this is true, it means that machines in the US are more biased...

Continue reading

Intoxilyzer 8000: The More You Blow

The Intoxilyzer 8000 is Ohio's breath testing device in DUI cases.  One of the major flaws of the machine is that its testing protocol can result in inflated tests. The more you blow, the higher it goes.Wondering Should you blow? Attorney explains in this video. The protocol for the Intoxilyzer 8000 in Ohio requires that you produce merely 1.1 liters of breath, less than the amount of air required to fill a two liter pop bottle.  The average adult can exhale between three and four liters of air.  If you are unlucky enough to be tested on this machine, the police...

Continue reading

Court’s Find A Way To Protect Intoxilyzer 8000

Ohio Courts are slowly fixing the Intoxilyzer 8000 implementation issues and (surprise!) they are not resolving the issues in favor of the accused.In State v. McMahon, 2013-Ohio-2557, the implementation of the Intoxilyzer 8000 was challenged due to confusion in the Ohio Administrative Code sections dealing with "operators."  It was alleged that the Ohio Department of Health failed to establish qualifications for issuing permits for Intoxilyzer 8000 operators as required by R.C. 4511.19 and 3701.143.  The court ruled that R.C. 3701.143 authorizes the director of health to issue permits to breath-alcohol machine operators, and we found the ODH’s position that an...

Continue reading

Appellate Decision: Rules (as written) Don’t Apply

A recent 10th District Court of Appeals decision in State v. Castle, 2012-Ohio-6028, decided on an interpretation of the Ohio Administrative Code that will allow the government to use both a BAC DataMaster or any other approved device to prosecute drunk driving cases in Ohio.  The court determined only the limited issue of whether the issuance of an operator access card under Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53- 09(D) prohibits the operator from performing breath tests using an instrument for which the operator also has been issued either an operator or senior operator permit under Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-09(B)."The BAC DataMaster and Intoxilyzer 8000 are...

Continue reading

Problems with the Intoxilyzer 8000

If you have been charged with OVI (drunk driving) based on a test on the Inoxilyzer 8000, let Charles M. Rowland II defend your case.  He was the first private attorney in Ohio to be certified as an operator of the Intoxilyzer 8000, he is Ohio's only Forensic Sobriety Assessment certified attorney, and  he limits his practice to the defense of the drunk driver.  Given the problems with the implementation of the Intoxilyzer 8000, you need an attorney who is up-to-date and on the cutting edge of DUI/OVI defense. What Are The Problems?The Intoxilyzer 8000, manufactured by CMI (out of Kentucky)...

Continue reading

Athens Judge Throws Out Intoxilyzer 8000 Rules

State v. Moore (12 TRC 1842) and State v. Montague (12 TRC 3773) Athens Municipal Court In another in a series of troubles for the implementation of Ohio's newest breath test machine, Judge Grimm in Athens County has halted use of the Intoxilyzer 8000.  Courts throughout Ohio must decide how, given this ruling, they will deal with the implementation of the machine.  The issue before the court involved the rules adopted by the Ohio Department of Health.  Specifically, the court was asked to address whether or not the Ohio Department of Health has authority to issue operator cards for the Intoxilyzer...

Continue reading

Rowland Speaks to Ohio Municipal Attorneys Association

Charles M. Rowland II (DaytonDUI) was honored to be asked to speak to the Ohio Municipal Attorney Association at their Ohio Municipal Law Institute.  The Ohio Municipal Attorney Association is made up of Law Directors, Village Solicitors, including civil law attorneys and prosecutors make up the individuals working for cities and villages active.  He gave a one hour presentation on the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test machine and the machine's troubled implementation in Ohio.  "What made this speech interesting for me, is that I had to speak to a room full of prosecutors," said Rowland.    "I emphasized the special role...

Continue reading

Infrared Spectroscopy and the Falsely High Breath Test (by DaytonDUI)

The Intoxilyzer 8000 operates using the scientific principle of infrared (IR) spectroscopy, which identifies molecules based on the way they absorb infrared (IR) light.  More specifically, when molecules in a breath sample are exposed to IR light the way they vibrate changes due to the bending of the (C-O, O-H, C-H, C-C) bonds.  Each type of bond absorbs light at a known wavelength, thus the amount of IR absorption identifies a substance as ethanol and how much ethanol is in the sample.But here’s the rub…  The machine can identify any compound containing a methyl group molecular structure as ethanol thereby...

Continue reading

Case Law Update: State v. Kitzler

State v. Kitzler, 2011-Ohio-5444 (3rd District Court of Appeals, Wyandot County). This odd decision involves the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test machine and a test result which did not satisfy the .020 agreement.FACTS: Defendant was stopped for not dimming his headlights and for marked lane violations.  He was asked to perform the standardized field sobriety tests and subsequently arrested for OVI.  At the police station he provided two breath samples (as is required on the Intoxilyzer 8000) and the machine reported the result as "Invalid."  The tests did not meet the .020 agreement.  Defendant was allowed to use the restroom and...

Continue reading

Evidential Breath Testing: Ohio Administrative Code 3701-53-01

Image via WikipediaIn Ohio, the Director of Health adopts Administrative rules which govern analytical testing for evidential use.  It is important that your Ohio DUI attorney understand these codes and how they affect your breath test results.  O.A.C. 3701-53-01 sets forth the methods or techniques which are approved to test blood, breath, urine or other bodily substances.  One of the things your OVI attorney should not overlook is the requirement in section (B) which requires the testing facility to have a copy of the written procedure manual on file in the area where the analytical tests are performed. 3701-53-01 Techniques or methods.(A)...

Continue reading