Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 5880-S2.SL) ***
(1) Upon the trial of any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, if the person's alcohol concentration is less than 0.08 or the person's THC concentration is less than 5.00, it is evidence that may be considered with other competent evidence in determining whether the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.
(2)(a) The breath analysis of the person's alcohol concentration shall be based upon grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath.
(b) The blood analysis of the person's THC concentration shall be based upon nanograms per milliliter of whole blood.
(c) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question whether the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.
(3) Analysis of the person's blood or breath to be considered valid under the provisions of this section or RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 shall have been performed according to methods approved by the state toxicologist and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the state toxicologist for this purpose. The state toxicologist is directed to approve satisfactory techniques or methods, to supervise the examination of individuals to ascertain their qualifications and competence to conduct such analyses, and to issue permits which shall be subject to termination or revocation at the discretion of the state toxicologist.
(4)(a) A breath test performed by any instrument approved by the state toxicologist shall be admissible at trial or in an administrative proceeding if the prosecution or department produces prima facie evidence of the following:
(i) The person who performed the test was authorized to perform such test by the state toxicologist;
(ii) The person being tested did not vomit or have anything to eat, drink, or smoke for at least fifteen minutes prior to administration of the test;
(iii) The person being tested did not have any foreign substances, not to include dental work or piercings, fixed or removable, in his or her mouth at the beginning of the fifteen-minute observation period;
(iv) Prior to the start of the test, the temperature of any liquid simulator solution utilized as an external standard, as measured by a thermometer approved of by the state toxicologist was thirty-four degrees centigrade plus or minus 0.3 degrees centigrade;
(v) The internal standard test resulted in the message "verified";
(vi) The two breath samples agree to within plus or minus ten percent of their mean to be determined by the method approved by the state toxicologist;
(vii) The result of the test of the liquid simulator solution external standard or dry gas external standard result did lie between .072 to .088 inclusive; and
(viii) All blank tests gave results of .000.
(b) For purposes of this section, "prima facie evidence" is evidence of sufficient circumstances that would support a logical and reasonable inference of the facts sought to be proved. In assessing whether there is sufficient evidence of the foundational facts, the court or administrative tribunal is to assume the truth of the prosecution's or department's evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in a light most favorable to the prosecution or department.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the subject of the test from challenging the reliability or accuracy of the test, the reliability or functioning of the instrument, or any maintenance procedures. Such challenges, however, shall not preclude the admissibility of the test once the prosecution or department has made a prima facie showing of the requirements contained in (a) of this subsection. Instead, such challenges may be considered by the trier of fact in determining what weight to give to the test result.
(5) When a blood test is administered under the provisions of RCW 46.20.308, the withdrawal of blood for the purpose of determining its alcohol or drug content may be performed only by a physician licensed under chapter 18.71 RCW; an osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 18.57 RCW; a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, or *advanced registered nurse practitioner licensed under chapter 18.79 RCW; a physician assistant licensed under chapter 18.71A RCW; an advanced emergency medical technician or paramedic certified under chapter 18.71 RCW; or a medical assistant-certified or medical assistant-phlebotomist certified under chapter 18.360 RCW, a person holding another credential under Title 18 RCW whose scope of practice includes performing venous blood draws, or a forensic phlebotomist certified under chapter 18.360 RCW. When the blood test is performed outside the state of Washington, the withdrawal of blood for the purpose of determining its alcohol or drug content may be performed by any person who is authorized by the out-of-state jurisdiction to perform venous blood draws. Proof of qualification to draw blood may be established through the department of health's provider credential search. This limitation shall not apply to the taking of breath specimens.
(6) When a venous blood sample is performed by a forensic phlebotomist certified under chapter 18.360 RCW, it must be done under the following conditions:
(a) If taken at the scene, it must be performed in an ambulance or aid service vehicle licensed by the department of health under chapter 18.73 RCW.
(b) The collection of blood samples must not interfere with the provision of essential medical care.
(c) The blood sample must be collected using sterile equipment and the skin area of puncture must be thoroughly cleansed and disinfected.
(d) The person whose blood is collected must be seated, reclined, or lying down when the blood is collected.
(7) The person tested may have a licensed or certified health care provider listed in subsection (5) of this section, or a qualified technician, chemist, or other qualified person of his or her own choosing administer one or more tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. The test will be admissible if the person establishes the general acceptability of the testing technique or method. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person shall not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test or tests taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer.
(8) Upon the request of the person who shall submit to a test or tests at the request of a law enforcement officer, full information concerning the test or tests shall be made available to him or her or his or her attorney.
[ 2020 c 80 s 33; 2017 c 336 s 7; 2016 c 203 s 8; 2015 2nd sp.s. c 3 s 22; 2013 c 3 s 37 (Initiative Measure No. 502, approved November 6, 2012); 2010 c 53 s 1; 2004 c 68 s 4; 1998 c 213 s 6; 1995 c 332 s 18; 1994 c 275 s 26; 1987 c 373 s 4; 1986 c 153 s 4; 1979 ex.s. c 176 s 5; 1975 1st ex.s. c 287 s 1; 1969 c 1 s 3 (Initiative Measure No. 242, approved November 5, 1968).]
Notes:
Rules of court: Evidence of Breathalyzer, BAC Verifier, simulator solution tests—CrRLJ 6.13.
*Reviser's note: The term "advanced registered nurse practitioner" was changed to "advanced practice registered nurse" by 2024 c 239 s 1, effective June 30, 2027.
Effective date—2020 c 80 ss 12-59: See note following RCW 7.68.030.
Intent—2020 c 80: See note following RCW 18.71A.010.
Finding—2017 c 336: See note following RCW 9.96.060.
Finding—Intent—2015 2nd sp.s. c 3: See note following RCW 10.21.055.
Intent—2013 c 3 (Initiative Measure No. 502): See note following RCW 69.50.101.
Finding—Intent—2004 c 68: See note following RCW 46.20.308.
Effective date—1998 c 213: See note following RCW 46.20.308.
Severability—Effective dates—1995 c 332: See notes following RCW 46.20.308.
Short title—Effective date—1994 c 275: See notes following RCW 46.04.015.
Legislative finding, purpose—Severability—1987 c 373: See notes following RCW 46.61.502.
Severability—1979 ex.s. c 176: See note following RCW 46.61.502.
Arrest of driver under influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs: RCW 10.31.100.
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 5880-S2.SL) ***
(1) Upon the trial of any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, if the person's alcohol concentration is less than 0.08 or the person's THC concentration is less than 5.00, it is evidence that may be considered with other competent evidence in determining whether the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.
(2)(a) The breath analysis of the person's alcohol concentration shall be based upon grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath.
(b) The blood analysis of the person's THC concentration shall be based upon nanograms per milliliter of whole blood.
(c) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question whether the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.
(3) Analysis of the person's blood or breath to be considered valid under the provisions of this section or RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 shall have been performed according to methods approved by the state toxicologist and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the state toxicologist for this purpose. The state toxicologist is directed to approve satisfactory techniques or methods, to supervise the examination of individuals to ascertain their qualifications and competence to conduct such analyses, and to issue permits which shall be subject to termination or revocation at the discretion of the state toxicologist.
(4)(a) A breath test performed by any instrument approved by the state toxicologist shall be admissible at trial or in an administrative proceeding if the prosecution or department produces prima facie evidence of the following:
(i) The person who performed the test was authorized to perform such test by the state toxicologist;
(ii) The person being tested did not vomit or have anything to eat, drink, or smoke for at least fifteen minutes prior to administration of the test;
(iii) The person being tested did not have any foreign substances, not to include dental work or piercings, fixed or removable, in his or her mouth at the beginning of the fifteen-minute observation period;
(iv) Prior to the start of the test, the temperature of any liquid simulator solution utilized as an external standard, as measured by a thermometer approved of by the state toxicologist was thirty-four degrees centigrade plus or minus 0.3 degrees centigrade;
(v) The internal standard test resulted in the message "verified";
(vi) The two breath samples agree to within plus or minus ten percent of their mean to be determined by the method approved by the state toxicologist;
(vii) The result of the test of the liquid simulator solution external standard or dry gas external standard result did lie between .072 to .088 inclusive; and
(viii) All blank tests gave results of .000.
(b) For purposes of this section, "prima facie evidence" is evidence of sufficient circumstances that would support a logical and reasonable inference of the facts sought to be proved. In assessing whether there is sufficient evidence of the foundational facts, the court or administrative tribunal is to assume the truth of the prosecution's or department's evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in a light most favorable to the prosecution or department.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the subject of the test from challenging the reliability or accuracy of the test, the reliability or functioning of the instrument, or any maintenance procedures. Such challenges, however, shall not preclude the admissibility of the test once the prosecution or department has made a prima facie showing of the requirements contained in (a) of this subsection. Instead, such challenges may be considered by the trier of fact in determining what weight to give to the test result.
(5) When a blood test is administered under the provisions of RCW 46.20.308, the withdrawal of blood for the purpose of determining its alcohol or drug content may be performed only by a physician licensed under chapter 18.71 RCW; an osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 18.57 RCW; a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, or advanced practice registered nurse licensed under chapter 18.79 RCW; a physician assistant licensed under chapter 18.71A RCW; an advanced emergency medical technician or paramedic certified under chapter 18.71 RCW; or a medical assistant-certified or medical assistant-phlebotomist certified under chapter 18.360 RCW, a person holding another credential under Title 18 RCW whose scope of practice includes performing venous blood draws, or a forensic phlebotomist certified under chapter 18.360 RCW. When the blood test is performed outside the state of Washington, the withdrawal of blood for the purpose of determining its alcohol or drug content may be performed by any person who is authorized by the out-of-state jurisdiction to perform venous blood draws. Proof of qualification to draw blood may be established through the department of health's provider credential search. This limitation shall not apply to the taking of breath specimens.
(6) When a venous blood sample is performed by a forensic phlebotomist certified under chapter 18.360 RCW, it must be done under the following conditions:
(a) If taken at the scene, it must be performed in an ambulance or aid service vehicle licensed by the department of health under chapter 18.73 RCW.
(b) The collection of blood samples must not interfere with the provision of essential medical care.
(c) The blood sample must be collected using sterile equipment and the skin area of puncture must be thoroughly cleansed and disinfected.
(d) The person whose blood is collected must be seated, reclined, or lying down when the blood is collected.
(7) The person tested may have a licensed or certified health care provider listed in subsection (5) of this section, or a qualified technician, chemist, or other qualified person of his or her own choosing administer one or more tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. The test will be admissible if the person establishes the general acceptability of the testing technique or method. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person shall not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test or tests taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer.
(8) Upon the request of the person who shall submit to a test or tests at the request of a law enforcement officer, full information concerning the test or tests shall be made available to him or her or his or her attorney.
[ 2025 c 58 s 5097; 2020 c 80 s 33; 2017 c 336 s 7; 2016 c 203 s 8; 2015 2nd sp.s. c 3 s 22; 2013 c 3 s 37 (Initiative Measure No. 502, approved November 6, 2012); 2010 c 53 s 1; 2004 c 68 s 4; 1998 c 213 s 6; 1995 c 332 s 18; 1994 c 275 s 26; 1987 c 373 s 4; 1986 c 153 s 4; 1979 ex.s. c 176 s 5; 1975 1st ex.s. c 287 s 1; 1969 c 1 s 3 (Initiative Measure No. 242, approved November 5, 1968).]
Notes:
Rules of court: Evidence of Breathalyzer, BAC Verifier, simulator solution tests—CrRLJ 6.13.
Effective date—2025 c 58 ss 5058-5170: See note following RCW 7.68.030.
Explanatory note—2025 c 58: See note following RCW 1.16.050.
Effective date—2020 c 80 ss 12-59: See note following RCW 7.68.030.
Intent—2020 c 80: See note following RCW 18.71A.010.
Finding—2017 c 336: See note following RCW 9.96.060.
Finding—Intent—2015 2nd sp.s. c 3: See note following RCW 10.21.055.
Intent—2013 c 3 (Initiative Measure No. 502): See note following RCW 69.50.101.
Finding—Intent—2004 c 68: See note following RCW 46.20.308.
Effective date—1998 c 213: See note following RCW 46.20.308.
Severability—Effective dates—1995 c 332: See notes following RCW 46.20.308.
Short title—Effective date—1994 c 275: See notes following RCW 46.04.015.
Legislative finding, purpose—Severability—1987 c 373: See notes following RCW 46.61.502.
Severability—1979 ex.s. c 176: See note following RCW 46.61.502.
Arrest of driver under influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs: RCW 10.31.100.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 271
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024).
State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024). “It therefore erred in concluding that the machine’s failure to do those necessary mathematical calculations itself rendered the results invalid and inadmissible under RCW 46.61.506, State v. Baker,2 and our evidence rules.”
State v. Stannard, 742 P.2d 1244 (Wash. 1987). “(1) Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506, to a chemical test or tests of his breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his…”
State v. Straka, 810 P.2d 888 (Wash. 1991). “That privilege will be suspended or revoked if a breath test that complies with RCW 46.61.506 shows that a driver has a blood alcohol level of .”
Town of Repub. v. Brown, 652 P.2d 955 (Wash. 1982). “In 1979, the Legislature amended RCW 46.61.506, making a person with .”
Town of Clyde Hill v. Rodriguez, 831 P.2d 149 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “That statute provides, in part, that [t]he officer shall inform the person of his or her right to refuse the breath or blood test, and of his or her right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his or her choosing as provided in RCW 46.61.506. *780…”
State v. Wittenbarger, 880 P.2d 517 (Wash. 1994). “10 grams or more of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath, as shown by analysis of the person's breath made under RCW 46.61.506 ...". Second, in RCW 46.61.”
State v. Schulze, 804 P.2d 566 (Wash. 1991). “10 grams or more of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath, as shown by analysis of the person's breath made under RCW 46.61.506; or (2) The person has 0.10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood as shown by analysis of the person's blood made under RCW…”
Cannon v. Dep't of Licensing, 50 P.3d 627 (Wash. 2002). “37 *52 The implied consent statute 38 is subject to the evidence admissibility statute in RCW 46.61.506. 39 Under that statute, evidence of a driver’s breath test is admissible only if the test administrator performed the test according to methods and procedures approved by the…”
State v. Donahue, 18 P.3d 608 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “10 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating…”
Ludvigsen v. City of Seattle, 174 P.3d 43 (Wash. 2007). “08 must be "shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506." SMC 11.56.020(A)(1)(a). ¶ 6 The amendment to the SMC may be largely illusory.”
State v. Franco, 639 P.2d 1320 (Wash. 1982). “10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood as shown by chemical analysis of his breath, blood, or other bodily substance made under RCW 46.61.506 as now or hereafter amended; or (2) He is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (3) He…”
State v. Curran, 804 P.2d 558 (Wash. 1991). “The officer shall inform the person of his or her right to refuse the breath or blood test, and of his or her right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his or her choosing as provided in RCW 46.61.506. The officer shall warn the driver that (a) his…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(1) — 14 cases
State v. Elkins, 220 P.3d 211 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Faust v. Albertson, 222 P.3d 1208 (Wash. 2009).
Faust v. Albertson, 222 P.3d 1208 (Wash. 2009).
State v. Curran, 804 P.2d 558 (Wash. 1991). “The officer shall inform the person of his or her right to refuse the breath or blood test, and of his or her right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his or her choosing as provided in RCW 46.61.506. The officer shall warn the driver that (a) his…”
State v. Donahue, 18 P.3d 608 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “10 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(2) — 12 cases
State v. Curran, 804 P.2d 558 (Wash. 1991). “The officer shall inform the person of his or her right to refuse the breath or blood test, and of his or her right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his or her choosing as provided in RCW 46.61.506. The officer shall warn the driver that (a) his…”
City of Seattle v. St. John, 215 P.3d 194 (Wash. 2009).
City of Seattle v. St. John, 166 Wash. 2d 941 (Wash. 2009).
State v. Donahue, 18 P.3d 608 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “10 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating…”
State v. Donahue, 105 Wash. App. 67 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Melcher, 655 P.2d 1169 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).
State v. Melcher, 655 P.2d 1169 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(2)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Bostrom, 902 P.2d 157 (Wash. 1995).
City of Seattle v. Rainwater, 546 P.2d 450 (Wash. 1976).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(3) — 70 cases
State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024). “It therefore erred in concluding that the machine’s failure to do those necessary mathematical calculations itself rendered the results invalid and inadmissible under RCW 46.61.506, State v. Baker,2 and our evidence rules.”
State v. Straka, 810 P.2d 888 (Wash. 1991). “That privilege will be suspended or revoked if a breath test that complies with RCW 46.61.506 shows that a driver has a blood alcohol level of .”
State v. Schulze, 804 P.2d 566 (Wash. 1991). “10 grams or more of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath, as shown by analysis of the person's breath made under RCW 46.61.506; or (2) The person has 0.10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood as shown by analysis of the person's blood made under RCW…”
State v. Wittenbarger, 880 P.2d 517 (Wash. 1994). “10 grams or more of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath, as shown by analysis of the person's breath made under RCW 46.61.506 ...". Second, in RCW 46.61.”
Ludvigsen v. City of Seattle, 174 P.3d 43 (Wash. 2007). “08 must be "shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506." SMC 11.56.020(A)(1)(a). ¶ 6 The amendment to the SMC may be largely illusory.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(4) — 27 cases
City of Kent v. Beigh, 32 P.3d 258 (Wash. 2001).
City of Kent v. Beigh, 145 Wash. 2d 33 (Wash. 2001).
State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024). “It therefore erred in concluding that the machine’s failure to do those necessary mathematical calculations itself rendered the results invalid and inadmissible under RCW 46.61.506, State v. Baker,2 and our evidence rules.”
State v. Merritt, 961 P.2d 958 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Cannon v. Dep't of Licensing, 50 P.3d 627 (Wash. 2002). “37 *52 The implied consent statute 38 is subject to the evidence admissibility statute in RCW 46.61.506. 39 Under that statute, evidence of a driver’s breath test is admissible only if the test administrator performed the test according to methods and procedures approved by the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(4)(a) — 17 cases
State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024). “It therefore erred in concluding that the machine’s failure to do those necessary mathematical calculations itself rendered the results invalid and inadmissible under RCW 46.61.506, State v. Baker,2 and our evidence rules.”
State v. Mashek, 312 P.3d 774 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Gresham, 269 P.3d 207 (Wash. 2012).
State v. Fedorov, 335 P.3d 971 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
Ingram v. Dep't of Licensing, 162 Wash. 2d 514 (Wash. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(4)(a)(i) — 1 case
Stuart Morrow, V. State Of Wa Dept. Of Licensing (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(4)(a)(ii) — 2 cases
State v. Mashek, 312 P.3d 774 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024). “It therefore erred in concluding that the machine’s failure to do those necessary mathematical calculations itself rendered the results invalid and inadmissible under RCW 46.61.506, State v. Baker,2 and our evidence rules.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(4)(a)(iii) — 3 cases
State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024). “It therefore erred in concluding that the machine’s failure to do those necessary mathematical calculations itself rendered the results invalid and inadmissible under RCW 46.61.506, State v. Baker,2 and our evidence rules.”
State v. Mashek, 312 P.3d 774 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State of Washington v. John Henry Sliger (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(4)(a)(iv) — 3 cases
Letourneau v. State, Dept. of Licensing, 128 P.3d 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Letourneau v. Dep't of Licensing, 131 Wash. App. 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024). “It therefore erred in concluding that the machine’s failure to do those necessary mathematical calculations itself rendered the results invalid and inadmissible under RCW 46.61.506, State v. Baker,2 and our evidence rules.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(4)(a)(v) — 1 case
State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024). “It therefore erred in concluding that the machine’s failure to do those necessary mathematical calculations itself rendered the results invalid and inadmissible under RCW 46.61.506, State v. Baker,2 and our evidence rules.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(4)(a)(vi) — 3 cases
State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024). “It therefore erred in concluding that the machine’s failure to do those necessary mathematical calculations itself rendered the results invalid and inadmissible under RCW 46.61.506, State v. Baker,2 and our evidence rules.”
Stuart Morrow, V. State Of Wa Dept. Of Licensing (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
John J. Spencer, Jr. v. Dept. of Licensing (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(4)(a)(viii) — 1 case
State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024). “It therefore erred in concluding that the machine’s failure to do those necessary mathematical calculations itself rendered the results invalid and inadmissible under RCW 46.61.506, State v. Baker,2 and our evidence rules.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(4)(b) — 12 cases
State v. Brown, 184 P.3d 1284 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Mashek, 312 P.3d 774 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State Of Washington v. Artur Tysyachuk, 461 P.3d 403 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Brown, 145 Wash. App. 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
State Of Washington v. Michelle Dawn Nichols (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(4)(c) — 16 cases
State v. Brown, 184 P.3d 1284 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Keller, 545 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2024). “It therefore erred in concluding that the machine’s failure to do those necessary mathematical calculations itself rendered the results invalid and inadmissible under RCW 46.61.506, State v. Baker,2 and our evidence rules.”
City of Seattle v. Holifield, 150 Wash. App. 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Mashek, 312 P.3d 774 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Letourneau v. State, Dept. of Licensing, 128 P.3d 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(4)(vi) — 1 case
John J. Spencer, Jr. v. Dept. of Licensing (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(5) — 24 cases
State v. Stannard, 742 P.2d 1244 (Wash. 1987). “(1) Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506, to a chemical test or tests of his breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his…”
State v. Wittenbarger, 880 P.2d 517 (Wash. 1994). “10 grams or more of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath, as shown by analysis of the person's breath made under RCW 46.61.506 ...". Second, in RCW 46.61.”
Town of Clyde Hill v. Rodriguez, 831 P.2d 149 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “That statute provides, in part, that [t]he officer shall inform the person of his or her right to refuse the breath or blood test, and of his or her right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his or her choosing as provided in RCW 46.61.506. *780…”
State v. Bartels, 774 P.2d 1183 (Wash. 1989).
State v. Brayman, 751 P.2d 294 (Wash. 1988).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(6) — 5 cases
State v. Straka, 810 P.2d 888 (Wash. 1991). “That privilege will be suspended or revoked if a breath test that complies with RCW 46.61.506 shows that a driver has a blood alcohol level of .”
State v. Morales, 269 P.3d 263 (Wash. 2012).
City of Bellevue v. Ohlson, 803 P.2d 1346 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).
State of Washington v. Jose Luis Sosa, 198 Wash. App. 176 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
State of Washington v. Thomas Michael Klindworth (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506(7) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Brian Smith (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
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.