Breath analysis and blood tests: how do you check the evidence route?

A result is part of an investigative action

The word positive can be used at different times. In a preliminary test, it may be an indication for further investigation. A later analysis can determine a measured value or substance. Without naming the step, it is unclear what the outcome legally proves. The police explain the alcohol test and drug use investigation separately. Therefore, use the real document titles and actions instead of collecting all results under one general test result. (police take the alcohol test · research into drug use)

Our editorial analysis is that good control starts with the route from person to sample and from sample to conclusion. What observation gave rise, what authority was applied and what investigation followed? Then comes the interpretation of the result. If you start immediately with the last number, you may miss an identification or context question. Anyone who only looks for a possible procedural error may ignore the substantive meaning of a correctly performed measurement.

The Road Traffic Act and implementation rules

The Road Traffic Act 1994 contains the criminal and investigative rules regarding driving under the influence. The Alcohol, Drugs and Medicines in Traffic Decree and the associated regulations elaborate parts of the investigations. Which rule is relevant depends on the substance, the research and the concrete situation. A protocol for means testing after violence is not automatically the protocol for a traffic case. (Road Traffic Act 1994 · Decree on alcohol, drugs and medicines in traffic · associated control)

Therefore, ask the lawyer to connect the applicable framework to the actual steps. A legal limit value, a provisional indication and a judgment on noticeable influence are different legal and factual subjects. Single use and combined use can also raise other questions. It is not responsible to convert values ​​between breath and blood yourself or to adopt a limit from another category. Have the correct unit, standard and source checked for the specific result.

What the first test does and does not say

A preliminary breath test on the street may lead to further investigation. A saliva test can provide an indication of certain drugs. The meaning lies in the function of that research within the route. A positive preliminary test does not automatically fully determine a punishable blood concentration. Conversely, an unfavorable observation during an audit does not automatically prove that the subsequent analysis replaces any legal condition.

Write down what you saw yourself and what result was communicated. Keep a memory of a color, symbol, or verbal word separate from the official record. An incorrect name can otherwise distort the discussion at the very beginning. Also discuss what other observations have been recorded, such as driving behavior or appearance. The defense can assess that data without assuming in advance that each indication is reliable or worthless.

The measured breathing value in its context

The device, its design and recording are relevant for a breath analysis. Ask which printout or official report is available, which value is used and in which unit. The value displayed must be related to the applicable standard and the driver's situation. Your own estimate of the number of drinks is not a reliable substitute for the analysis. The time between drinking, driving and research can also be a specific question that requires expert assessment.

If you were unable to conduct the investigation properly due to a health problem, describe factually what happened and what information was given to the police. That is not automatically the same as a legally justified refusal. Let the lawyer assess which rule has been applied to the situation and which medical information may be relevant. Only share necessary data. A general instruction not to blow when in doubt can lead to a new legal problem and is not provided by this article.

Identification and chronology are important links

For blood tests, it must be possible to link the sample to the correct person and research procedure. Note which identification, date, time and documents are known. The file documents can describe, among other things, acceptance, packaging, shipping and receipt. The concrete implementation rules determine which data and actions are required. A missing detail in the document you happened to receive does not automatically prove that the action was not performed; another account may exist.

Therefore ask specifically which document shows a specific link. The spore identification number can help connect the collection, the laboratory report and the notification. Copy numbers accurately and do not distribute them publicly unnecessarily. If two pieces don't seem to match, state exactly the difference. The lawyer can assess whether a supplement or further investigation is necessary. A firm accusation of sample mix-up requires more than an unclear copy of your own.

A report contains more than the final number

Read which research question the laboratory was asked and which substances and values ​​are reported. Check sample identity, units used and any comments or limitations. A report can measure data without independently deciding every legal conclusion about the driving moment. The relationship between the moment of collection, investigation and suspicion should therefore be included in the file discussion. A technical concept that you do not understand is a specific question, not a reason to choose a favorable meaning yourself.

For multiple substances, the applicable limit may be different than for one substance. The use of medicines may also have a different factual and legal context than a separate positive screening. Actually report relevant medication to the lawyer and, if necessary, the competent investigator. Do not change or stop prescribed treatment based on this article. The medical use and the traffic law assessment each require appropriate expertise; A prescription does not automatically answer every question about fitness to drive or criminal liability.

Do not postpone assessment of the result until the hearing

The Decree regulates options for counter-investigation in the situations referred to for this purpose. Breath testing and blood testing do not necessarily involve the same procedure or timing. Immediately ask what notice has been given about the right and what instructions apply. Waiting for a later criminal hearing may jeopardize the practical possibility of having a control investigation carried out in a timely manner. The in-depth counter investigation in a traffic case deals with this separately. (Decision · Counter-examination after an alcohol or drug test)

Save the notice, envelope and available receipt details. Note which laboratory performed the initial examination and what identification is provided. A complaint about the result is not automatically an order for a counter-investigation. Nor is a payment to any commercial provider sufficient to organize the correct sample route. Let the lawyer check the appropriate procedure, competent laboratories, costs and deadlines. A counter-research can support the assessment, but does not guarantee a different or favorable outcome.

Fictional example: a positive word and two different values

Suppose a driver in a fictional business hears on the street that a test is positive. Later he receives a laboratory letter with a substance name and value. In the file interview he mentions both the blood results, while the first step was a preliminary saliva test. This makes it unclear which objection relates to which action. The example shows why a simple chronological route can be more useful than immediately discussing the word positive.

The lawyer sets out the preliminary test, collection, laboratory analysis and notification in separate lines. It is then investigated which standard applies to the reported substance and combination and whether counter research is being considered. The driver provides his memory and documents without reconstructing a technical result himself. The example does not say that a difference between the steps proves an error. It makes visible that each step has its own function and its own control points.

A possible defect is not an automatic outcome

If incorrect implementation is suspected, it must be specifically stated which rule and action are meant. A time, identification data or communication may be relevant, but the legal meaning differs. Ask which standard applies, whether the facts are sufficiently established and which interest is affected by a possible defect. The absence of a signature on one's own copy cannot simply be translated into the absence of any legal means of proof.

Then have the attorney assess the appropriate consequences and route. Not every defect automatically leads to exclusion of evidence or termination of the case. An independent refusal can also raise its own criminal or administrative law question. Therefore, keep objections to implementation, substantive results and cooperation visible separately. The value of this check lies in carefully examining a relevant point, not in collecting as many common Internet errors as possible that may have nothing to do with the case.

A research route with documents per step

The overview below is an editorial aid for the first file interview. It is not a laboratory protocol or personal judgment about a result. Only enter known information and refer to the source. This way, the lawyer can see where a document is missing, which question requires specialist assessment and which step requires immediate attention due to a deadline.

• Reason: driving moment, observations, preliminary test and communicated outcome.
• Jurisdiction: which act or order has been applied and in what situation?
• Analysis or collection: date, time, person, device or sample identification.
• Transport and research: available documents on shipping, receipt and laboratory report.
• Result: substance, value, unit, applicable standard and stated restrictions.
• Notice: contents, transmission, receipt and counter-examination information.
• Follow-up: specific question, appropriate expert, term check and individual CBR or driving license decisions.