Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 18-8003 (2026)
Persons authorized to withdraw blood for the purposes of determining content of alcohol or other intoxicating substances and restitution orders.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Persons authorized to withdraw blood for the purposes of determining content of alcohol or other intoxicating substances and restitution orders.
(1) Only a licensed physician, qualified medical technologist, registered nurse, phlebotomist trained in a licensed hospital or educational institution or other medical personnel trained in a licensed hospital or educational institution to withdraw blood can, at the order or request of a peace officer, withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the content of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances therein. This limitation shall not apply to the taking of a urine, saliva or breath specimen. For purposes of this section: (a) the term "qualified medical technologist" shall be deemed to mean a person who meets the standards of a "clinical laboratory technologist" as set forth by the then current rules and regulations of the social security administration of the United States department of health and human services pursuant to subpart M of part 405, chapter III, title 20, of the code of federal regulation; and (b) the terms "phlebotomist" and "other medical personnel" shall be deemed to mean persons who meet the standards for the withdrawing of blood as designated and qualified by the employing medical facility or other employing entity of those persons.
(2) Upon conviction for a felony or misdemeanor violation under this chapter, except pursuant to sections 18-8001 and 18-8007, Idaho Code, or upon conviction for vehicular manslaughter pursuant to section 18-4006(3)(b), Idaho Code, the court may order restitution for the reasonable costs incurred by law enforcement agencies to withdraw blood samples, perform laboratory analysis, transport and preserve evidence, preserve evidentiary test results and for testimony relating to the analysis in judicial proceedings, including travel costs associated with the testimony. Law enforcement agencies shall include, but not be limited to, the Idaho state police, county and city law enforcement agencies, the office of the attorney general and county and city prosecuting attorney offices. In the case of reimbursement to the Idaho state police, those moneys shall be paid to the Idaho state police for deposit into the drug and driving while under the influence enforcement donation fund created in section 57-816, Idaho Code. In the case of reimbursement to the office of the attorney general, those moneys shall be paid to the general fund. A "conviction" for purposes of this subsection means that the person has pled guilty or has been found guilty, notwithstanding the form of the judgment(s) or withheld judgment(s).
(3) The person tested may, at his own expense, have a person of his own choosing, who is authorized to make a test, administer an evidentiary test for alcohol concentration in addition to the one administered at the request of a peace officer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: State v. Clapp, 510 P.3d 667 (Idaho 2022).
State v. Clapp, 510 P.3d 667 (Idaho 2022). “I.C. § 18-8003(1). The State responded, arguing that the actual drawing of Clapp’s blood had been done by Wallin, a phlebotomist, not by Officer Grover, and suppression was a remedy for a constitutional violation not a statutory violation.”
State v. Allen, 177 P.3d 397 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008). “Idaho Code § 18-8003 (1) provides: Only a licensed physician, qualified medical technologist, registered nurse, phlebotomist trained in a licensed hospital or educational institution or other medical personnel trained in a licensed hospital or educational institution to withdraw…”
Bennett v. State, Dep't of Transp., 206 P.3d 505 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009). “Bennett testified that the officer left the room at least twice during the fifteen minutes of monitoring immediately prior to the administration of the blood alcohol test.”
Platz v. State, Transp. Dep't, 303 P.3d 647 (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). “The parties have briefed and argued the propriety of the stay issued by the district court pending the hearing officer’s decision. We view the issue as moot, as we can effectively grant no relief.”
State v. Worthington, 65 P.3d 211 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). “(b) A peace officer is empowered to order an individual authorized in section 18-8003, Idaho Code, to withdraw a blood sample for evidentiary testing when the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any of the following offenses: (i) Aggravated…”
State v. Cooper, 39 P.3d 637 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001). “§ 18-8002(6)(b) specifically provides that: A peace officer is empowered to order an individual authorized in section 18-8003, Idaho Code, to withdraw a blood sample for evidentiary testing when the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any…”
Peck v. State, Dep't of Transp., 278 P.3d 439 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). “The affidavit was a computer-generated form and the only indication that the fifteen-minute observation procedure was complied with was a general statement saying, “The test(s) was/were performed in compliance with Section 18-8003 & 18-8004(4) Idaho Code and the standards and…”
State v. Albright, 718 P.2d 1186 (Idaho 1986). “While it would be appropriate for a jury to consider such a slight possibility in arriving at a determination of guilt or innocence, it is not for this Court on appeal to speculate that the independent hospital tests were defective and that, had the appellants conducted…”
State v. Shanahan, 994 P.2d 1059 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999). “Shanahan appeals from the judgments of conviction and concurrent unified life sentences, with thirty-five years fixed, for first degree murder, I.C. § 18-8003(a), and ten years fixed for robbery, I.”
State v. Clapp (Idaho 2022). “I.C. § 18-8003(1). The State responded, arguing that the actual drawing of Clapp’s blood had been done by Wallin, a phlebotomist, not by Officer Grover, and suppression was a remedy for a constitutional violation not a statutory violation.”
State v. Guerra (Idaho 2021). “” Guerra contends the district court erred when it upheld the magistrate court’s rulings concerning her motion in limine and her objection at trial: “Since Officer Deleon [sic] does not 12 meet the definition of a person able to draw blood for evidentiary purposes under Idaho…”
State v. Guerra (Idaho 2021). “” Guerra contends the district court erred when it upheld the magistrate court’s rulings concerning her motion in limine and her objection at trial: “Since Officer Deleon [sic] does not 12 meet the definition of a person able to draw blood for evidentiary purposes under Idaho…”
— Idaho Code § 18-8003(1) — 6 cases
State v. Clapp, 510 P.3d 667 (Idaho 2022). “I.C. § 18-8003(1). The State responded, arguing that the actual drawing of Clapp’s blood had been done by Wallin, a phlebotomist, not by Officer Grover, and suppression was a remedy for a constitutional violation not a statutory violation.”
State v. Allen, 177 P.3d 397 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008). “Idaho Code § 18-8003 (1) provides: Only a licensed physician, qualified medical technologist, registered nurse, phlebotomist trained in a licensed hospital or educational institution or other medical personnel trained in a licensed hospital or educational institution to withdraw…”
State v. Clapp (Idaho 2022). “I.C. § 18-8003(1). The State responded, arguing that the actual drawing of Clapp’s blood had been done by Wallin, a phlebotomist, not by Officer Grover, and suppression was a remedy for a constitutional violation not a statutory violation.”
State v. Guerra (Idaho 2021). “” Guerra contends the district court erred when it upheld the magistrate court’s rulings concerning her motion in limine and her objection at trial: “Since Officer Deleon [sic] does not 12 meet the definition of a person able to draw blood for evidentiary purposes under Idaho…”
State v. Guerra (Idaho 2021). “” Guerra contends the district court erred when it upheld the magistrate court’s rulings concerning her motion in limine and her objection at trial: “Since Officer Deleon [sic] does not 12 meet the definition of a person able to draw blood for evidentiary purposes under Idaho…”
— Idaho Code § 18-8003(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Gillette (Idaho Ct. App. 2023).
— Idaho Code § 18-8003(2) — 1 case
State v. Albright, 718 P.2d 1186 (Idaho 1986). “While it would be appropriate for a jury to consider such a slight possibility in arriving at a determination of guilt or innocence, it is not for this Court on appeal to speculate that the independent hospital tests were defective and that, had the appellants conducted…”
— Idaho Code § 18-8003(a) — 1 case
State v. Shanahan, 994 P.2d 1059 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999). “Shanahan appeals from the judgments of conviction and concurrent unified life sentences, with thirty-five years fixed, for first degree murder, I.C. § 18-8003(a), and ten years fixed for robbery, I.”
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.