results of a breathalyzer test in Illinois

2018Foundation Requirements for the Admission of Breathalyzer Test Results ¶ 23 Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in admitting the results of his Breathalyzer test because the State "failed to certify that the machine from which [his] test results were derived was accurate and properly calibrated at the time of [his] test." ¶ 24 The results of a Breathalyzer test may be admitted if the State can show: "(1) evidence that the tests were performed according to the uniform standard adopted by the Illinois Department of Public Health, (2) evidence that the operator administering the test

2018Foundation Requirements for the Admission of Breathalyzer Test Results ¶ 23 Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in admitting the results of his Breathalyzer test because the State "failed to certify that the machine from which [his] test results were derived was accurate and properly calibrated at the time of [his] test." ¶ 24 The results of a Breathalyzer test may be admitted if the State can show: "(1) evidence that the tests were performed according to the uniform standard adopted by the Illinois Department of Public Health, (2) evidence that the operator administering the test

2016People v. Olson, 2013 IL App (2d) 121308, ¶ 15 .

2015People v. Olson, 2013 IL App (2d) 121308, ¶ 15 .

2014Id. at 575 .

2014Id. at 575 .

2010In People v. Van De Rostyne, 63 Ill. 2d 364 (1976), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Young, 82 Ill. 2d 234 (1980), the trial court granted the defendant’s “Motion to Suppress” the results of a Breathalyzer test on the basis that improper procedures had been used in administering the test.

1981Young explained that in dictum there the court had said that the label “ ‘motion to suppress’ * * * was intended only to reach illegally obtained evidence and that Rule 604 should not be interpreted to allow an interlocutory appeal from every ruling excluding evidence offered by the prosecution.” ( 82 Ill. 2d 234, 241 , 412 N.E.2d 501, 504 .) Some appellate opinions used Van De Rostyne to limit orders appealable by the State to those suppressing evidence derived from illegal searches and seizures and involuntary confessions, although not all cases interpreted that decision so narrowly.

2010In People v. Van De Rostyne, 63 Ill. 2d 364 (1976), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Young, 82 Ill. 2d 234 (1980), the trial court granted the defendant’s “Motion to Suppress” the results of a Breathalyzer test on the basis that improper procedures had been used in administering the test.

1979With this background, the issue reached the supreme court in People v. Van De Rostyne (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 364 , 349 N.E.2d 16 , where appeal was attempted from an order, entered during a trial involving a charge of driving while inebriated, suppressing the results of a Breathalyzer test conducted on the defendant.

2025Id. at 191-92 . ¶ 88 In this case, the trial court allowed defendant to speak at length about his concerns regarding counsel’s representation, including defendant’s concerns about the effect of acid reflux on the result of the Breathalyzer test.

1999While Orth involved the reliability of the results of a breathalyzer test, its principles were applied to a blood test in People v. Culpepper, 254 Ill.

1999App. 3d 215 , 625 N.E.2d 868 (1993).

1993(People v. Ayres (1992), 228 Ill.

1992(People v. Bulman (1991), 212 Ill.

1992(People v. Miller (1991), 219 Ill.

1988Gupton, 139 Ill.

1988App. 3d 657 , 400 N.E.2d 491 .) Moreover, the results of a breathalyzer test, which was requested under color of law in association with a citizen’s arrest, have been held to be admissible.

1979App. 2d 795 , 270 N.E.2d 861 .) In the Van De Rostyne case the defendant sought to have the results of a breathalyzer test, in a driving-while-intoxicated case, suppressed on the grounds that it had been administered by improper procedures.

1977People v. Lara (1976), 44 Ill.