Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-203 (2026)
Administration of a chemical test
- One (1) or more chemical tests authorized in § 5-65-202 shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having reasonable cause to believe the person to have been operating or in actual physical control of a motorboat on the waters of this state or a motor vehicle while intoxicated or while there was an alcohol concentration of eight hundredths (0.08) or more in the person's breath or blood.
-
- The law enforcement agency by which the law enforcement officer is employed shall designate which chemical test or chemical tests shall be administered, and the law enforcement agency is responsible for paying any expense incurred in conducting the chemical test or chemical tests.
- If the person tested requests that additional chemical test or chemical tests be made as authorized in § 5-65-204(d), the cost of the additional chemical test or chemical tests shall be borne by the person tested, unless the person is found not guilty, in which case the arresting law enforcement agency shall reimburse the person for the cost of the additional chemical test or chemical tests.
- If a person objects to the taking of his or her blood for a chemical test as authorized in this chapter, the breath, saliva, or urine of the person may be used for the chemical test.
History. Acts 1969, No. 106, § 1; 1971, No. 55, § 1; 1971, No. 306, § 1; 1973, No. 127, § 1; 1975, No. 660, § 1; 1983, No. 549, § 11; A.S.A. 1947, § 75-1045; Acts 1987, No. 75, § 1; 2001, No. 561, § 8; 2009, No. 431, § 2; 2013, No. 361, § 5; 2015, No. 299, § 8.
Amendments. The 2001 amendment substituted “an alcohol concentration … breath or blood” for “one-tenth of one percent (0.10%) or more of alcohol in the person's blood” in (a); redesignated former (b) through (b)(2) as present (b)(1) through (b)(3); deleted “aforesaid” preceding “tests shall be” in (b)(1); added “unless the person … the additional tests” in (b)(2); and substituted “in this chapter” for “herein” in (b)(3).
The 2009 amendment substituted “One (1) or more chemical tests authorized in § 5-65-202” for “A chemical test” in (a); inserted “or chemical tests” in five places throughout (b); and made a minor stylistic change.
The 2013 amendment, in (b)(3), inserted “saliva” and substituted “for the chemical test” for “to make the chemical analysis”.
The 2015 amendment added “of a chemical test” in the section heading; inserted “motorboat on the waters of this state or a” in (a); and substituted “a person” for “any person” in (b)(3).
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Survey — Criminal Procedure, 10 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 567.
Survey of Legislation, 2001 Arkansas General Assembly, Criminal Law, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 429.
Case Notes
Applicability.
Where defendant was stopped by police officers because of his driving and after the officers talked with defendant, defendant turned and shot officer and thereafter both officers and defendant were injured and taken to hospital and the treating physician ordered a blood test on defendant and such defendant was charged with assault with intent to kill, the provisions of §§ 5-65-202 — 5-65-205 with regard to the taking of a blood test had no application. Turner v. State, 258 Ark. 425, 527 S.W.2d 580 (1975) (decision prior to 1983 amendment).
Additional Tests.
Where the evidence disclosed that the arresting officer did not advise the defendant driver that if he objected to the taking of his blood for a blood alcohol test, a breath or urine test might be taken at his own expense, did not mean that all testimony with regard to the test was inadmissible under the provisions of § 5-65-204; since the defendant did not have any test results introduced into evidence against him, he was not deprived of any statutory rights when the trial court permitted the arresting officer to testify that the defendant refused to submit to a blood alcohol test. Whaley v. State, 11 Ark. App. 248, 669 S.W.2d 502 (1984).
The statutory remedy for a person who is not afforded the opportunity to obtain an additional test as provided under this section is exclusion of any chemical test taken at the direction of law enforcement officers pursuant to § 5-65-204. Grayson v. State, 30 Ark. App. 105, 783 S.W.2d 75 (1990).
Certification of Officers.
The Court of Appeals could not consider the defendant's argument that the state failed to prove that the police officer was certified where the defendant failed to object to the police officer's testimony or question his status upon cross-examination, but instead first raised the issue in his motion for directed verdict at the close of the state's case. Miller v. State, 19 Ark. App. 36, 715 S.W.2d 885 (1986).
Expenses.
If a particular law enforcement agency designates that chemical tests will be administered, the agency is responsible for paying any expenses involved, but if the accused requests the tests, he shall bear the expense. Ballew v. State, 305 Ark. 542, 809 S.W.2d 374 (1991).
Reasonable Cause.
Evidence held sufficient to find that there was ample cause for the officer to require defendant to submit to a breath test. Elam v. State, 286 Ark. 174, 690 S.W.2d 352 (1985).
Where defendant was not arrested for any act committed while driving while intoxicated, nor was he involved in a fatal accident or stopped by an officer who had reasonable cause to believe that he was intoxicated, defendant was not deemed to have consented to take the blood alcohol test even though he was found in physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated. Roberts v. State, 287 Ark. 451, 701 S.W.2d 112 (1985).
Since defendant's parked car created a traffic hazard, the officers had specific, particular, and articulable reasons to suspect that a misdemeanor involving danger of injury to persons or property was being committed by the defendant; thus, the stop was reasonable under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1, and the evidence of driving while intoxicated was admissible. Dacus v. State, 16 Ark. App. 222, 699 S.W.2d 417 (1985).
Where an officer detects a defendant's flushed appearance, slurred speech, and uneasiness on his feet, along with the odor of alcohol, ample cause for requiring the breath test exits. Cook v. State, 37 Ark. App. 27, 823 S.W.2d 916 (1992).
Testing Options.
Where the officer gave the motorist the option of submitting to either a urine or a blood test, the motorist could not properly refuse without penalty. Mace v. State, 328 Ark. 536, 944 S.W.2d 830 (1997).
Cited: St. Paul Ins. Co. v. Touzin, 267 Ark. 539, 592 S.W.2d 447 (1980); Watson v. Frierson, 272 Ark. 316, 613 S.W.2d 824 (1981); Gullett v. State, 18 Ark. App. 97, 711 S.W.2d 836 (1986); State v. Schaub, 310 Ark. 76, 832 S.W.2d 843 (1992); Roberts v. State, 324 Ark. 68, 919 S.W.2d 192 (1996); Peterson v. State, 81 Ark. App. 226, 100 S.W.3d 66 (2003).