(a) Upon the trial of any civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence, evidence of the amount of alcohol, controlled substance, or other impairing substance in a person’s blood at the alleged time, as determined by a chemical analysis of the person’s blood, breath, oral fluid, or other bodily substance, or any combination thereof, shall be admissible. Where a chemical test or tests are made, the following provisions shall apply:
(1) Chemical analyses of the person’s blood, breath, oral fluid, or other bodily substance to be considered valid shall have been performed according to methods approved by the Department of Forensic Sciences and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the Department of Forensic Sciences. The court trying the case may take judicial notice of the methods approved by the Department of Forensic Sciences. The Department of Forensic Sciences may approve satisfactory techniques or methods to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct the analyses and to issue permits which shall be subject to termination or revocation at the discretion of the Department of Forensic Sciences. The Department of Forensic Sciences shall approve permits required in this section only for employees of state, county, municipal, and federal law enforcement agencies, and for laboratory personnel employed by the Department of Forensic Sciences.
(2) When a person shall submit to a blood test at the direction of a law enforcement officer pursuant to Section 32-5-192, only a physician, a registered nurse, a paramedic, a phlebotomist, or other qualified person may withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content or the presence of other impairing substances. This limitation shall not apply to the taking of breath or oral fluid.
(3) The person tested may at his or her own expense have a physician, qualified technician, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his or her own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the discretion of a law enforcement officer. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person shall not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test or tests taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer.
(4) Upon the written request of the person who shall submit to a chemical test or tests at the request of a law enforcement officer, full information concerning the test or tests shall be made available to him or her or his or her attorney.
(5) Percent by weight of alcohol in the blood shall be based upon grams of alcohol per 100 cubic centimeters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
(b) Upon the trial of any civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood at the time alleged as shown by chemical analysis of the person’s blood or breath shall give rise to all of the following presumptions:
(1) If there were at that time 0.05 percent or less by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood, it shall be presumed that the person was not under the influence of alcohol unless the person was operating a motor vehicle in performance of his or her duties as a school bus driver or day care driver at that time or was under the age of 21 years at that time.
(2) If there were at the time in excess of 0.05 percent but less than 0.08 percent by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood, this fact shall not give rise to any presumption that the person was or was not under the influence of alcohol, but this fact may be considered with other competent evidence in determining whether the person was under the influence of alcohol unless the person was operating a motor vehicle in performance of his or her duties as a school bus driver or day care driver at that time or was under the age of 21 years at that time.
(3) If there were at that time 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood, or greater than .02 percent if the person was operating a motor vehicle in performance of his or her duties as a school bus driver or day care driver at that time or was under the age of 21 years at that time, it shall be presumed that the person was under the influence of alcohol.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence relating to the question of whether the person was under the influence of alcohol.
(c) If a person under arrest refuses to submit to a chemical test or tests pursuant to Section 32-5-192, evidence of refusal shall be admissible in any civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence.
(d) No physician, registered nurse, phlebotomist, paramedic, duly licensed chemical laboratory technologist or clinical laboratory technician, fire department, rescue squad, private ambulance company, or medical facility shall incur any civil or criminal liability as a result of the proper administering of a blood test when requested in writing by a law enforcement officer to administer such a test.
(Acts 1980, No. 80-434, p. 604, §9-103; Acts 1988, No. 88-660, p. 1058, §1; Acts 1995, No. 95-784, p. 1862, §2; Acts 1996, No. 96-341, p. 416, §2; Acts 1996, No. 96-705, p. 1174, §2; Act 2021-498, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
46
cases, 1981–2016 · leading case:
Meininger v. State, 704 So. 2d 1034 (Ala. 1997).
Meininger v. State, 704 So. 2d 1034 (Ala. 1997).
· cites it 21× “Code 1975, § 32-5-192, the test results may be admitted either by `show[ing] that the test was administered in conformity with [§ 32-5A-194]' or by laying `the traditional evidentiary foundation used to admit results from scientific tests.”
Ex Parte State, 620 So. 2d 739 (Ala. 1993).
· cites it 11× “In order to find the defendant guilty of violating § 32-5A-191(a)(1), the jury is not required to find that the defendant was "under the influence" of alcohol; therefore, the jury need not "presume," in accordance with § 32-5A-194, that he was under the influence from evidence…”
Bilbrey v. State, 531 So. 2d 27 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Other state courts, with statutory provisions similar to § 32-5A-194(a)(3), have resolved this question.”
Meininger v. State, 704 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 7× “In Curren , the Alabama Supreme Court, reversing a judgment of this court, noted that § 32-5A-191(a)(1) is an "illegal per se" law, and that the rebuttable presumption of § 32-5A-194(b)that the defendant was intoxicated if his blood alcohol content was shown to be 0.”
Unruh v. State, 669 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1996).
“[4] Ala.Code § 32-5A-194(a)(3) (1975), provides: The person tested may at his own expense have a physician, or a qualified technician, registered nurse or other qualified person of his own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the…”
Ex Parte State, 528 So. 2d 1159 (Ala. 1988).
“10% or more by weight implies that one is driving under the influencesee also § 32-5A-194(b)(3)§ 32-5A-191(a)(1) does not specifically require that the state show that the defendant is driving under the influence.”
United States v. Tyson, 829 F. Supp. 368 (M.D. Ala. 1993).
· cites it 9× “First, Tyson objected to the admission of the breath test results because the provisions of § 32-5A-194 and § 32-5-192 of the 1975 Alabama Code were not followed.”
Morgan v. City of Vestavia Hills, 628 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “Code 1975, § 32-5-192, the test results may be admitted either by “showing] that the test was administered in conformity with [§ 32-5A-194]” or by laying “the traditional evidentiary foundation used to admit results from scientific tests.”
Hanners v. State, 461 So. 2d 43 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Although no chemical test for intoxication was performed in this case, Alabama Code 1975, § 32-5A-194 (1980), provides that a person whose blood-alcohol level is 0.”
Ex Parte Harwell, 639 So. 2d 1335 (Ala. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Ala.Code 1975, § 32-5A-194(a)(3), states: "(3) The person tested may at his own expense have a physician, or a qualified technician, registered nurse or other qualified person of his own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the…”
McLaughlin v. City of Homewood, 548 So. 2d 580 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “[2] The inclusion of the words "under the influence of alcohol" is derived from the perambulatory language for presumptions contained in § 32-5A-194(a), Code of Alabama (1975). Because § 32-5A-194(a) makes no distinction between § 32-5A-191(a)(1) and § 32-5A-191(a)(2), the…”
Welcher v. State, 504 So. 2d 360 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “In refusing the defendant's requested charge on the rebuttable nature of the presumption of intoxication created by Alabama Code 1975, § 32-5A-194(b), the trial court is guilty of the same error which caused a reversal in Salazar v.”
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(a) — 4 cases
Meininger v. State, 704 So. 2d 1034 (Ala. 1997).
“Code 1975, § 32-5-192, the test results may be admitted either by `show[ing] that the test was administered in conformity with [§ 32-5A-194]' or by laying `the traditional evidentiary foundation used to admit results from scientific tests.”
McLaughlin v. City of Homewood, 548 So. 2d 580 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988).
“[2] The inclusion of the words "under the influence of alcohol" is derived from the perambulatory language for presumptions contained in § 32-5A-194(a), Code of Alabama (1975). Because § 32-5A-194(a) makes no distinction between § 32-5A-191(a)(1) and § 32-5A-191(a)(2), the…”
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(a)(1) — 11 cases
Meininger v. State, 704 So. 2d 1034 (Ala. 1997).
“Code 1975, § 32-5-192, the test results may be admitted either by `show[ing] that the test was administered in conformity with [§ 32-5A-194]' or by laying `the traditional evidentiary foundation used to admit results from scientific tests.”
Morgan v. City of Vestavia Hills, 628 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993).
“Code 1975, § 32-5-192, the test results may be admitted either by “showing] that the test was administered in conformity with [§ 32-5A-194]” or by laying “the traditional evidentiary foundation used to admit results from scientific tests.”
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(a)(2) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(a)(3) — 6 cases
Bilbrey v. State, 531 So. 2d 27 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988).
“Other state courts, with statutory provisions similar to § 32-5A-194(a)(3), have resolved this question.”
Unruh v. State, 669 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1996).
“[4] Ala.Code § 32-5A-194(a)(3) (1975), provides: The person tested may at his own expense have a physician, or a qualified technician, registered nurse or other qualified person of his own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the…”
Ex Parte Harwell, 639 So. 2d 1335 (Ala. 1993).
“Ala.Code 1975, § 32-5A-194(a)(3), states: "(3) The person tested may at his own expense have a physician, or a qualified technician, registered nurse or other qualified person of his own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the…”
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(a)(4) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(a)(5) — 2 cases
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(a)(l) — 13 cases
United States v. Tyson, 829 F. Supp. 368 (M.D. Ala. 1993).
“First, Tyson objected to the admission of the breath test results because the provisions of § 32-5A-194 and § 32-5-192 of the 1975 Alabama Code were not followed.”
Morgan v. City of Vestavia Hills, 628 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993).
“Code 1975, § 32-5-192, the test results may be admitted either by “showing] that the test was administered in conformity with [§ 32-5A-194]” or by laying “the traditional evidentiary foundation used to admit results from scientific tests.”
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(b) — 5 cases
Ex Parte State, 620 So. 2d 739 (Ala. 1993).
“In order to find the defendant guilty of violating § 32-5A-191(a)(1), the jury is not required to find that the defendant was "under the influence" of alcohol; therefore, the jury need not "presume," in accordance with § 32-5A-194, that he was under the influence from evidence…”
Meininger v. State, 704 So. 2d 1034 (Ala. 1997).
“Code 1975, § 32-5-192, the test results may be admitted either by `show[ing] that the test was administered in conformity with [§ 32-5A-194]' or by laying `the traditional evidentiary foundation used to admit results from scientific tests.”
Welcher v. State, 504 So. 2d 360 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987).
“In refusing the defendant's requested charge on the rebuttable nature of the presumption of intoxication created by Alabama Code 1975, § 32-5A-194(b), the trial court is guilty of the same error which caused a reversal in Salazar v.”
Meininger v. State, 704 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
“In Curren , the Alabama Supreme Court, reversing a judgment of this court, noted that § 32-5A-191(a)(1) is an "illegal per se" law, and that the rebuttable presumption of § 32-5A-194(b)that the defendant was intoxicated if his blood alcohol content was shown to be 0.”
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(b)(2) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(b)(3) — 9 cases
Ex Parte State, 528 So. 2d 1159 (Ala. 1988).
“10% or more by weight implies that one is driving under the influencesee also § 32-5A-194(b)(3)§ 32-5A-191(a)(1) does not specifically require that the state show that the defendant is driving under the influence.”
Ex Parte State, 620 So. 2d 739 (Ala. 1993).
“In order to find the defendant guilty of violating § 32-5A-191(a)(1), the jury is not required to find that the defendant was "under the influence" of alcohol; therefore, the jury need not "presume," in accordance with § 32-5A-194, that he was under the influence from evidence…”
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(b)(4) — 3 cases
Meininger v. State, 704 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
“In Curren , the Alabama Supreme Court, reversing a judgment of this court, noted that § 32-5A-191(a)(1) is an "illegal per se" law, and that the rebuttable presumption of § 32-5A-194(b)that the defendant was intoxicated if his blood alcohol content was shown to be 0.”
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(b)(l) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(c) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.