Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 759 (2026)

See the following versions:

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

OS 47-759v1 (HB 1777, Laws 2021, c. 208, § 1) OS 47-759v2 (HB 1751, Laws 2025, c. 330, § 14)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 30 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2023 · leading case: Bailey v. State Ex Rel. Bd. of Tests for Alcohol & Drug Influence, 2022 OK 50 (Okla. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bailey v. State Ex Rel. Bd. of Tests for Alcohol & Drug Influence, 2022 OK 50 (Okla. 2022). · cites it 3× “3d 505 Sample relied upon the then current version of 47 O.S. § 759 Sample , and these are the rules challenged by plaintiffs.”

Westerman v. State, 525 P.2d 1359 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “Title 47 O.S.1971, § 759 which established the Board of Chemical Tests for Alcoholic Influence provides in pertinent part: “Chemical analysis of the person’s blood or breath to be considered valid under the provisions of this act shall have been performed according to methods…”

State v. Hovet, 2016 OK CR 26 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The District Court erred in suppressing the breath test of the Appellee because 47 O.S. § 759 does not require the State to prove existing Board of Tests rules, resolutions and director actions were properly promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act.”

State v. Hodges, 2020 OK CR 2 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “47 O.S.Supp.2015, § 759; 47 O.S.2011, § 752.”

Browning v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 812 P.2d 1372 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “" 47 O.S.Supp. 1990 § 759(C) (emphasis added).”

Charlson v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 2005 OK 83 (Okla. 2005). “2004, § 752(H) 7 and 47 O.S.Supp.2004, § 759(B) 8 require that tests for alcohol concentration be performed in compliance with the rules and regulations adopted by the Board.”

Edwards v. State, 544 P.2d 60 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). “” 47 O.S. § 759. The Board, we may conclude, is the agency chosen to be primarily responsible for devising a procedure to insure not only the proper maintenance and operation of devices such as the one herein involved, but also the level of accuracy such tests are scientifically…”

Hammon v. State, 2023 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “2021, § 991c(E) ("The provisions of subsection D of this section shall be retroactive"); 47 O.S.Supp.2023, § 759(G) ("The provisions of subsections B and C of this subsection shall be retroactive.”

Synnott v. State, 515 P.2d 1154 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973). “In his concluding proposition the defendant urges that the power granted to the Board of Chemical Tests for alcoholic influence by the Legislature in 47 O.S.1971, § 759 constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of authority.”

Brown v. State, 584 P.2d 231 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978). “2d 1359 (1974), this Court held that 47 O.S.1971, § 759, requires that the State prove that the rules promulgated by the Board of Chemical Tests for Alcoholic Influence have been complied with, prior to the admission of the results of a breathalyzer test.”

Hames v. State, 818 P.2d 904 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “In his first assignment of error, Appellant contends that the breathalyzer machine used did not meet the requirements set forth by the Board of Alcohol and Drug Influence, pursuant to 47 O.S.1981, § 759. The Officer’s Affidavit prepared by the officer administering the…”

Manning v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 71 P.3d 527 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “¶ 13 We reiterate that 47 O.S.2001 § 759 requires that collection and analysis of a person’s breath, to be considered valid and admissible evidence, must be performed in compliance with the rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Tests.”

Show all 30 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 759(A) — 1 case

Fairres v. State, ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 872 P.2d 942 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 759(B) — 11 cases

State v. Hovet, 2016 OK CR 26 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). “The District Court erred in suppressing the breath test of the Appellee because 47 O.S. § 759 does not require the State to prove existing Board of Tests rules, resolutions and director actions were properly promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act.”

State v. Hodges, 2020 OK CR 2 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020). “47 O.S.Supp.2015, § 759; 47 O.S.2011, § 752.”

Manning v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 71 P.3d 527 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003). “¶ 13 We reiterate that 47 O.S.2001 § 759 requires that collection and analysis of a person’s breath, to be considered valid and admissible evidence, must be performed in compliance with the rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Tests.”

Andrews v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Pub. Saf., 2014 OK CIV APP 19 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 759(C) — 2 cases

Browning v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 812 P.2d 1372 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991). “" 47 O.S.Supp. 1990 § 759(C) (emphasis added).”

Pierce v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 856 P.2d 1017 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 759(G) — 1 case

Hammon v. State, 2023 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2023). “2021, § 991c(E) ("The provisions of subsection D of this section shall be retroactive"); 47 O.S.Supp.2023, § 759(G) ("The provisions of subsections B and C of this subsection shall be retroactive.”

— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 759(c) — 1 case

Wood v. State, 716 P.2d 707 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).

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.