Section 24K. Chemical analysis of the breath of a person charged with a violation of this chapter shall not be considered valid under the provisions of this chapter, unless such analysis has been performed by a certified operator, using infrared breath-testing devices according to methods approved by the secretary of public safety. The secretary of public safety shall promulgate rules and regulations regarding satisfactory methods, techniques and criteria for the conduct of such tests, and shall establish a statewide training and certification program for all operators of such devices and a periodic certification program for such breath testing devices; provided, however, that the secretary may terminate or revoke such certification at his discretion.
Said regulations shall include, but shall not be limited to the following: (a) that the chemical analysis of the breath of a person charged be performed by a certified operator using a certified infrared breath-testing device in the following sequence: (1) one adequate breath sample analysis; (2) one calibration standard analysis; (3) a second adequate breath sample analysis; (b) that no person shall perform such a test unless certified by the secretary of public safety; (c) that no breath testing device, mouthpiece or tube shall be cleaned with any substance containing alcohol.
The secretary of public safety shall prescribe a uniform form for reports of such chemical analysis to be used by law enforcement officers and others acting in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Such forms shall be sequentially numbered. Each chief of police or other officer or official having charge or control of a law enforcement agency shall be responsible for the furnishing and proper disposition of such uniform forms. Each party so responsible shall prepare or cause to be prepared such records and reports relating to such uniform forms and their disposition in such manner and at such times as the secretary of public safety shall prescribe.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Zeininger, 947 N.E.2d 1060 (Mass. 2011).
Commonwealth v. Zeininger, 947 N.E.2d 1060 (Mass. 2011).
· cites it 9× “Under G. L. c. 90, § 24K, the results of a breathalyzer test “shall not be considered valid” and, thus, are inadmissible in evidence at a subsequent prosecution for OUI, unless “performed by a certified operator using a certified infrared breath-testing device” (emphasis…”
Commonwealth v. Smigliano, 694 N.E.2d 341 (Mass. 1998).
· cites it 3× “The defendant separately moved to suppress the result of a breathalyzer test on the ground that the officer administering the test was certified not by the Secretary of Public Safety (Secretary), but by the Criminal Justice Training Council (council), contrary to the terms of G.…”
Morris v. Commonwealth, 593 N.E.2d 241 (Mass. 1992).
· cites it 6× “1 The defendant moved for a hearing to determine whether the Commonwealth had complied with the requirements of the periodic testing program for breathalyzer machines set forth in G. L. c. 90, § 24K (1990 ed.), and the regulations promulgated thereunder.”
Commonwealth v. Camblin, 31 N.E.3d 1102 (Mass. 2015).
· cites it 4× “We interpret his argument as asserting, at the very least, that a hearing was needed to determine the status of the Alcotest as an “infrared breath-testing device” as required by G. L. c. 90, § 24K. In the alternative, the defendant contends that even if the Alcotest is an…”
Commonwealth v. Steele, 914 N.E.2d 886 (Mass. 2009).
· cites it 4× “See G. L. c. 90, § 24K. Among these requirements is that the breathalyzer test be conducted by a “certified operator, using infrared breath-testing devices according to methods approved by the secretary of public safety [Secretary].”
Commonwealth v. Durning, 548 N.E.2d 1242 (Mass. 1990).
“He added that two breath tests and a simulator test were required only as of July 1, 1987, pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 24K. Sergeant Figueredo stated that he performed a simulator test on the Intoxilyzer approximately every two weeks in order to check the machine’s accuracy.”
Commonwealth v. Kelley, 657 N.E.2d 1274 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 2× “In the Morris opinion, the court held that placing the task of periodic testing in the hands of police reasonably satisfied the legislative requirement for periodic testing contained in G. L. c. 90, § 24K. “The regulation recognizes that it is simply not possible for [the Office…”
Commonwealth v. Hourican, 10 N.E.3d 646 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014).
“209, 212 (2009) (brackets omitted), quoting from G. L. c. 90, § 24K. 3 For a breathalyzer test result to be valid and admissible in evidence, the Commonwealth must demonstrate compliance with those regulations that “go to the accuracy of the [breath testing] device or manner in…”
Commonwealth v. Smith, 624 N.E.2d 604 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993).
“Such a program is distinct from the parallel program of semi-annual recertification of breath testing devices by the office of alcohol testing (OAT) 6 required under G. L. c. 90, § 24K, and 501 Code Mass. Regs.”
Commonwealth v. Lopes, 944 N.E.2d 999 (Mass. 2011).
· cites it 2× “8 G. L. c. 90, § 24K. Commonwealth v. Barbeau, 411 Mass.”
Commonwealth v. Barbeau, 585 N.E.2d 1392 (Mass. 1992).
“G. L. c. 90, § 24K. 4 In accordance *785 with this statutory mandate, the Secretary promulgated regulations requiring OAT to devise a program for the periodic testing of these certified devices, 501 Code Mass.”
Commonwealth v. Pierre, 890 N.E.2d 152 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008).
“5 On the facts of this case, however, the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of showing compliance with the approved “satisfactory methods” for conducting breathalyzer tests promulgated pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 24K. See 501 Code Mass. *233 Regs.”
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.