Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 634.16 (2026)

Admission Into Evidence Of Results Of Approved Breath Tests

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any civil or criminal hearing or trial, the results of a breath test, when performed by a person who has been fully trained in the use of an infrared or other approved breath-testing instrument, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 11, pursuant to training given or approved by the commissioner of public safety or the commissioner's acting agent, are admissible in evidence without antecedent expert testimony that an infrared or other approved breath-testing instrument provides a trustworthy and reliable measure of the alcohol in the breath.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Underdahl v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 735 N.W.2d 706 (Minn. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Underdahl v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 735 N.W.2d 706 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 13× “The commissioner essentially argued that the court of appeals should issue the writ of prohibition because Minn.Stat. § 634.16 (2006), which sets forth a presumption of reliability whereby the results of an infrared breath test are “admissible in evidence without antecedent…”

Jasper v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 642 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 10× “Laws 88 , 92 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. § 634.16 (1998)). 2 A party seeking to admit such evidence need only show that the breath test was performed by a person fully trained in the use of the instrument pursuant to training given or approved by the commissioner.”

State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 2009). · cites it 4× “Minn. Stat. §§ 634.16 (2008), 169A.53, subd.”

In re Source Code Evidentiary Hearings in Implied Consent Matters, 816 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. 2012). · cites it 6× “1 (2011); Minn.Stat. § 634.16 (2010). In 2006, a driver, Dale Underdahl, filed a motion seeking discovery of the complete computer source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN instrument, arguing that access to the source code was necessary to determine whether the source code…”

State v. Ards, 816 N.W.2d 679 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “See Minn.Stat. § 634.16 (2010) (stating that breath test results are admissible without “antecedent expert testimony” of the approved breath-test instrument’s reliability when the test is being administered by a trained person).”

State of Minnesota v. Quintin Lynn Thomas, 882 N.W.2d 640 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 634.16 (2014) (providing that the results of infrared or other approved breath-testing instruments are admissible without antecedent expert testimony establishing the trustworthiness of such instruments).”

Ahrens v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 396 N.W.2d 653 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 634.16 (1984). The Intoxilyzer is an infrared breath testing instrument.”

State v. Underdahl, 749 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “The state argues that the results of an Intoxilyzer breath test are presumed to be reliable under Minn.Stat. § 634.16 (2006), which allows the results of a breath test to be admitted “in evidence without antecedent expert testimony that an .”

Pasek v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 383 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 634.16 (1984) provides that results from an infrared breath test performed by a trained person “are admissible in evidence without antecedent expert testimony that an infrared breath-testing instrument provides a trustworthy and reliable measure of the alcohol in…”

Scheper v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 380 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 634.16 (1984). The testimony here indicated that the officer who did the testing *224 was certified to do so.”

State v. Birk, 687 N.W.2d 634 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “Notwithstanding this confusion, however, Birk’s argument that admitting the Intoxilyzer test without antecedent expert testimony under Minn.Stat. § 634.16 creates an improper presumption of guilt is without merit.”

Bond v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 570 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 634.16 (1996) provides: In any civil or criminal hearing or trial, the results of an infrared breath-test, when performed by a person who has been fully trained in the use of an infrared breath-testing instrument, as defined in section 169.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

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.