Ark. Code Ann. » Title 5 Chapter 65
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-207 (2020)

Alcohol testing devices

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. An instrument used to determine the alcohol content of the breath for the purpose of determining if the person was operating a motorboat on the waters of this state or a motor vehicle while intoxicated or with an alcohol concentration of eight hundredths (0.08) or more shall be constructed so that the analysis:
      1. Is made automatically when a sample of the person's breath is placed in the instrument; and
      2. Does not require adjustment or other action by the person administering the analysis.
    2. The instrument shall display digitally the alcohol content on the instrument itself as well as on an automatic printout.
  2. A breath analysis made by or through the use of an instrument that does not conform to the requirements of this section is inadmissible in a criminal or civil proceeding.
    1. The State Board of Health may adopt appropriate rules to carry out the intent of this section.
    2. Only instruments approved by the board as meeting the requirements of this section and its own rules shall be used for making the breath analysis for determining alcohol concentration.
      1. The Department of Health may limit by its rules the types or models of testing devices that may be approved for use under this section.
      2. The approved types or models shall be specified by manufacturer's name and model.
  4. A law enforcement agency that conducts alcohol testing shall comply with this section.

History. Acts 1985, No. 533, §§ 1-3; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 75-1046.1 — 75-1046.3; Acts 1989, No. 419, § 1; 2001, No. 561, § 13; 2007, No. 827, § 81; 2015, No. 299, § 11.

Amendments. The 2001 amendment redesignated former (a) as present (a)(1) through (a)(2) and made related changes; in (a)(1), deleted “machine or” preceding “instrument” and “or blood of any person by analysis of the breath of the person” preceding “for the purpose of” and substituted “an alcohol concentration of eight-hundredths (0.08)” for “a blood alcohol content of one-tenth of one percent (0.10%)”; substituted “instrument” for “machine” in (a)(2); deleted “blood” preceding “alcohol” in (a)(2), (c)(1) and (d); substituted “an instrument” for “a machine or instrument” in (b); redesignated former (c) as present (c)(1) through (c)(2); in (c)(1), deleted “machines or” preceding “instruments” and substituted “concentration” for “content”; and made minor stylistic changes throughout.

The 2015 amendment, in (a)(1), inserted “motorboat on the waters of this state or a”, substituted “constructed so” for “so constructed”, and inserted the (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B) designations; substituted “Does not require” for “without any” in (a)(1)(B); rewrote (a)(2) and (c); substituted “comply” for “maintain full compliance” in (d); and made stylistic changes.

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2001 Arkansas General Assembly, Criminal Law, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 429.

Case Notes

Full Compliance.

The legislature intended to provide a time lag between the effective date of the act (June 28, 1985) enacting this section and full compliance. Hence, introduction of breathalyzer test into evidence was proper even though machine did not have the visual digital readout required by this section, since full compliance with this section by all law enforcement agencies which conduct blood alcohol testing is not required until June 28, 1989. Cothran v. State, 291 Ark. 401, 725 S.W.2d 548 (1987).

Cited: City of Little Rock v. Hudson, 366 Ark. 415, 236 S.W.3d 509 (2006).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2006–2006 · leading case: City of Little Rock v. Hudson, 236 S.W.3d 509 (Ark. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Little Rock v. Hudson, 236 S.W.3d 509 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 7× “The LRFD filed a timely notice of appeal from the circuit court’s decision, and now argues that the circuit court’s decision was against the preponderance of the evidence; the Fire Department also raises an argument concerning the trial court’s interpretation of Ark.”
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.