Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3 (2026)
Offer of test; administration of test
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 3. (a) A law enforcement officer shall offer a portable breath test or chemical test to any person who the officer has reason to believe operated a vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident or an accident involving serious bodily injury. If:
(1) the results of a portable breath test indicate the presence of alcohol;
(2) the results of a portable breath test do not indicate the presence of alcohol but the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe the person is under the influence of a controlled substance or another drug; or
(3) the person refuses to submit to a portable breath test;
the law enforcement officer shall offer a chemical test to the person.
(b) A law enforcement officer may offer a person more than one (1) portable breath test or chemical test under this section. However, all chemical tests must be administered within three (3) hours after the fatal accident or the accident involving serious bodily injury.
(c) It is not necessary for a law enforcement officer to offer a portable breath test or chemical test to an unconscious person.
[Pre-1991 Recodification Citation: 9-4-1-39.1(e) part.]
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.18. Amended by P.L.275-2001, SEC.3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Morgan Mannix v. State of Indiana, 54 N.E.3d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Morgan Mannix v. State of Indiana, 54 N.E.3d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3 (a) (emphasis added).”
Temperly v. State, 933 N.E.2d 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Indiana Code § 9-30-7-3 Temperly initially argues that the trial court erred when it found that probable cause existed for Officer Wright to offer a chemical test for intoxication under Indiana Code section 9-80-6-2 because the evidence was insufficient to establish probable…”
Griswold v. State, 725 N.E.2d 416 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “The following restated issue is presented in this appeal: Did the trial court err in determining that Ind.Code § 9-30-7-3 is constitutional and in denying Griswold’s second motion to suppress? We affirm.”
Abney v. State, 811 N.E.2d 415 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “At the time of Abney's alleged crimes, Ind.Code § 9-30-7-3 provided: (a) A law enforcement officer may offer a chemical test to any person who the officer has reason to believe operated a vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident or an accident involving serious bodily…”
State v. Whitney, 889 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Ind.Code § 9-30-7-3(a) suggests our legislature intended PBTs to be a screening device that could eliminate the need to conduct a chemical test: A law enforcement officer shall offer a portable breath test or chemical test to any person who the officer has reason to believe…”
Brown v. State, 744 N.E.2d 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “In its Order denying Griswold's Motion to Suppress, which asserted a challenge to the constitutionality of Indiana Code section 9-30-7-3 because it allows seizure of blood in the complete absence of probable cause to believe a driver was impaired, the trial court stated: After…”
Hannoy v. State, 789 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “3 We went on to state: *987 IC § 9-30-7-2 merely requires a driver involved in a fatal accident or one involving serious bodily injury to submit to a test offered by a police officer pursuant to IC § 9-30-7-3 in order to comply with the implied consent law in Indiana and to…”
State of Indiana v. David Bisard, 973 N.E.2d 1229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Ind.Code § 9-30-7-3(a) (2001). Refusal to submit to a test is an infraction and results in suspension of driving privileges.”
Ruel P. Pedigo, III v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “2d at 828 (quoting Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3 (a)(2)). Whitney involved a motorcycle driver who was stopped for speeding and offered a portable breath test when the officer thought he smelled the odor of alcohol but did not yet have probable cause of intoxication.”
Duncan v. State, 799 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “the law enforcement officer shall offer a Ind.Code § 9-30-7-3(a) (emphasis added). However, "[nlothing in Indiana Code § 9-80-7 authorizes an officer to forcibly take a blood sample if actual consent to a chemical test is not obtained.”
State v. Lucas, 934 N.E.2d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “I.C. § 9-30-7-3(a). If the results of a portable breath test indicate the presence of alcohol, the officer shall offer a chemical test to the subject.”
Kyle Hutton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “” Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3 (a) (emphasis added).”
— Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3(a) — 11 cases
Morgan Mannix v. State of Indiana, 54 N.E.3d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3 (a) (emphasis added).”
Temperly v. State, 933 N.E.2d 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Indiana Code § 9-30-7-3 Temperly initially argues that the trial court erred when it found that probable cause existed for Officer Wright to offer a chemical test for intoxication under Indiana Code section 9-80-6-2 because the evidence was insufficient to establish probable…”
State v. Whitney, 889 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Ind.Code § 9-30-7-3(a) suggests our legislature intended PBTs to be a screening device that could eliminate the need to conduct a chemical test: A law enforcement officer shall offer a portable breath test or chemical test to any person who the officer has reason to believe…”
State of Indiana v. David Bisard, 973 N.E.2d 1229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Ind.Code § 9-30-7-3(a) (2001). Refusal to submit to a test is an infraction and results in suspension of driving privileges.”
Griswold v. State, 725 N.E.2d 416 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “The following restated issue is presented in this appeal: Did the trial court err in determining that Ind.Code § 9-30-7-3 is constitutional and in denying Griswold’s second motion to suppress? We affirm.”
— Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3(a)(2) — 2 cases
Ruel P. Pedigo, III v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “2d at 828 (quoting Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3 (a)(2)). Whitney involved a motorcycle driver who was stopped for speeding and offered a portable breath test when the officer thought he smelled the odor of alcohol but did not yet have probable cause of intoxication.”
Nicholas A. Blackburn v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2026).
— Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3(b) — 3 cases
Morgan Mannix v. State of Indiana, 54 N.E.3d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3 (a) (emphasis added).”
State v. Whitney, 889 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Ind.Code § 9-30-7-3(a) suggests our legislature intended PBTs to be a screening device that could eliminate the need to conduct a chemical test: A law enforcement officer shall offer a portable breath test or chemical test to any person who the officer has reason to believe…”
Ruel P. Pedigo, III v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “2d at 828 (quoting Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3 (a)(2)). Whitney involved a motorcycle driver who was stopped for speeding and offered a portable breath test when the officer thought he smelled the odor of alcohol but did not yet have probable cause of intoxication.”
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.