skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 77364 Find in a Library
Title: Defendant's Right to Independent Analysis of the Breathalyzer Ampoule - The Probable Virginia Response
Journal: William and Mary Law Review  Volume:21  Issue:1  Dated:(Fall 1979)  Pages:219-271
Author(s): A L Zuckerman
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 53
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This note examines the general use of chemical test evidence in Virginia, the principle and processes of the breathalyzer machine, and the basis of the due process challenges in other courts.
Abstract: The Virginia legislature approved chemical tests in 1954. Chemical testing for intoxication became possible when scientists recognized that the amount of alcohol in the brain could be measured to determine the level of intoxication. Although experts disagree concerning the accuracy of breath testing, it has become recognized widely in criminal proceedings. The major significance of the use of breath testing in drunken driving prosecutions lies in the statutory presumption of intoxication that results from a breathalyzer reading above a certain level. At least 28 States, including Virginia, have established the intoxication level at 0.10 percent or higher. Statutory presumptions of intoxication derived from breathalyzer test results are rebuttable rather than conclusive. Challenges to the admissibility of a breathalyzer test, which result when the ampoules containing the breath sample are unavailable for independent analysis by the defendant, are based on denial of the defendant's due process rights. The basis for such challenges is found in the Supreme Court's ruling in Brady v. Maryland (1963). Despite challenges raised in other State courts, it is predicted that the Virginia courts will adopt the position that destruction of used breathalyzer test ampoules does not interfere with the defendant's ability to determine the facts or raise a defense. This note asserts that the spirit of due process is served best by requiring the prosecution to retain the breathalyzer ampoule for the defendant's independent analysis or suffer the sanction of the suppression of breath test results. Legislation on the question or retention of breathalyzer ampoules would serve both defendants and the prosecution. Until such legislative action is taken, the best protection for the defendant faced with breathalyzer test results but no ampoule to impeach those results is to present expert testimony during trial as to the fallibility of the test. In addition, defense counsel must request strong jury instruction to counteract the prejudice attendant in breathalyzer evidence. The note provides 249 footnotes.
Index Term(s): Alcohol consumption analysis; Defendants; Driving Under the Influence (DUI); Drunk offender implied consent; Evidence; Right to Due Process; State laws; Virginia
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.