Boal Law Firm, P.C.
Call Today for the Answers You Deserve 719-602-2262

Blood Alcohol Tests Archives

Breathalyzers and blood alcohol tests

The legal standard throughout Colorado and America in general is that a person is innocent until and unless proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is a constiuationally-guaranteed right of all Americans, and while this is a noble concept, it is unfortunately a standard that -- though often talked about -- causes one to wonder if it is actually being practiced. One example of this concerns Breathalyzers used as a form of blood alcohol testing.

Blood alcohol tests and express consent

Every morning thousands of drivers start their day just like you. They get into  and start their car, pull onto the road, and head toward their particular destination. Presumably these individuals have a driver's license and know how to drive, but this is not always the case. The state of Colorado makes is called express consent.  That means by simply conducting the act of driving, the driver gives law enforcement permission to require said driver to submit to a blood alcohol tests or breath test to determine intoxication.  This law has the same force and effect whether the driver is aware of it or not.  Failure to comply for first time offenders resultes in the loss of the driver's license for one year.

Blood alcohol tests and questionable machines

When it comes to determining the innocence or guilt of an individual, a Colorado judge must consider the evidence presented by the prosecutor. In turn, the prosecutor must rely upon law enforcement personnel to collect this evidence in a proper manner. Finally, law enforcement personnel must rely upon their instincts, training and the tools that they are given when they collect this evidence. When it comes to collecting evidence in a DUI case, many times these officers rely upon blood alcohol tests as part of their evidence.

More clarity now on warrantless blood draws? P.2

In our last post, we briefly discussed a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to not hear an appeal out of Colorado which sought clarity on a previous Supreme Court ruling which refused to recognize an automatic exception to the general warrant requirement where officers are concerned about the natural dissipation of alcohol from a suspect’s bloodstream.  Here we want to look a bit more at this issue, particularly whether we now have more clarity with the court’s refusal to hear the Colorado appeal.  

More clarity now on warrantless blood draws? P.1

The Supreme Court will apparently not be hearing an appeal in a case involving a Colorado man who was arrested in 2012 and forced to submit to a warrantless blood draw after he caused an intersection crash. At trial, the man was able to have the blood test excluded from evidence because the officer failed to make an attempt at securing a warrant before ordering the blood draw.