Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 32:663 (2026)

Approval of testing methods by Department of Public Safety and Corrections

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§663. Approval of testing methods by Department of Public Safety and Corrections

A.(1) Chemical analyses of the person's blood, urine, breath, or other bodily substance, to be considered valid under the provisions of this Part, shall have been performed according to methods approved and promulgated by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections and performed by an individual or laboratory possessing a valid permit issued by said department for the purposes set forth in this Part. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections is authorized to approve satisfactory techniques or methods, to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals or laboratories to conduct such analyses, and to issue permits which shall be subject to termination or revocation at the discretion of the department in accordance with regulations approved and promulgated by the department pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.

(2) Chemical analyses of a person's blood, urine, breath, or other bodily substance may be conducted by an out-of-state individual or laboratory provided that the chemical analyses are performed in accordance with the methods approved and promulgated by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections or are performed by an individual or laboratory possessing a valid permit. Such analyses shall be considered valid under the provisions of this Part and admissible and competent evidence in the courts of this state and in administrative law hearings if performed in accordance with the methods approved and promulgated by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections or are performed by an individual or laboratory possessing a valid permit.

B. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections may use an individual's current certification to a nationally or internationally recognized certification body or a laboratory's current accreditation to an accreditation program based on the international standard, ISO/IEC 17025, with an accreditation scope that includes toxicology or blood alcohol, in its determination of the qualifications and competence of individuals or laboratories as required by Subsection A of this Section prior to the issuance of a permit. C. Issuance of a permit to such a certified individual or laboratory makes all laboratory forensic test results conducted on a person's blood, urine, or other bodily substance by such individual or laboratory valid under the provisions of this Part, and admissible and competent evidence of intoxication in any court of law or administrative hearing.

Added by Acts 1968, No. 273, §14. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 533, §1; Acts 1999, No. 1212, §1; Acts 2008, No. 492, §1, eff. June 25, 2008; Acts 2008, No. 536, §1, eff. June 30, 2008; Acts 2009, No. 183, §1; Acts 2015, No. 111, §1, eff. July 1, 2015; Acts 2018, No. 506, §1, eff. August 1, 2018.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 74 cases, 1972–2020 · leading case: State v. Jones, 316 So. 2d 100 (La. 1975).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Jones, 316 So. 2d 100 (La. 1975). · cites it 14× “R.S. 32:663 as it relates to the circumstances of this case and the objections based thereon during the trial of this matter.”

State v. Green, 418 So. 2d 609 (La. 1982). · cites it 4× “R.S. 32:663. The legislature and this court have recognized the importance of establishing safeguards to guarantee accuracy in chemical testing.”

State v. Morrison, 392 So. 2d 1037 (La. 1980). · cites it 4× “32:663, which provides: "Chemical analyses of the person's blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance, to be considered valid under the provisions of this Part, shall have been performed according to methods approved by the Department of Public Safety and by an individual…”

State v. Junell, 308 So. 2d 780 (La. 1975). · cites it 10× “R.S. 32:663. Defense counsel perfected a bill of exceptions relative to the issue of the lack of a permit.”

State v. Watts, 168 So. 3d 441 (La. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “Section 32:663 does not prohibit the introduction of test results merely because the collection kit or anticoagulant used differed from that approved by the Department, where competent, admissible evidence proves that the collection device employed provided equivalent protection…”

State v. Fortner, 478 So. 2d 673 (La. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 7× “The defendant's application for review asserts the following assignments of error: (1) the blood sample was extracted by Norma Willis, but the state offered no evidence to establish her as being an individual in possession of a valid permit for this purpose issued by the…”

State v. Price, 952 So. 2d 112 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “R.S. 32:663, his sample blood analysis was performed in compliance with the regulations and procedures approved by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.”

State v. Westbrook, 392 So. 2d 1043 (La. 1980). · cites it 2× “[1] LSA-R.S. 32:663. [2] A certificate of inspection filed with the Clerk of Court of Calcasieu Parish states that the PEI machine used to test defendant, No.”

State v. Graham, 360 So. 2d 853 (La. 1978). · cites it 2× “R.S. 32:663. [3] In considering previous attacks upon the validity of the statutory design, this Court has expressed the opinion that, in order for the State to avail itself of the statutory presumption of a defendant's intoxication without violation of his constitutional due…”

Meyer v. State, Dept. of Pub. Saf. Lic. Con., Etc., 312 So. 2d 289 (La. 1975). · cites it 3× “) R.S. 32:663. Chemical anaylses of the person's blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance, to be considered valid under the provisions of this Part, shall have been performed according to methods approved by the state department of health and by an individual possessing a…”

State v. Bruins, 315 So. 2d 293 (La. 1975). · cites it 5× “The State called neither the individual who drew relator's blood nor the person who performed the analysis, the results of which appear on the hospital report introduced into evidence.”

State v. Krause, 405 So. 2d 832 (La. 1981). · cites it 2× “" Pursuant to R.S. 32:663, the Department of Public Safety adopted certain regulations which require a maintenance check of all PEI machines at least once every four months accompanied by a spot check of the lot of ampuls used with each machine.”

Show all 74 citing cases →

— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:663(A)(1) — 2 cases

State v. Watts, 168 So. 3d 441 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “Section 32:663 does not prohibit the introduction of test results merely because the collection kit or anticoagulant used differed from that approved by the Department, where competent, admissible evidence proves that the collection device employed provided equivalent protection…”

State of Louisiana v. Maurice Addison Hawley, 149 So. 3d 1211 (La. 2014).

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.