• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Engel & Martin

Boutique Law Firm

513-445-9600

  • Home
  • Criminal Cases
    • Business Litigation
    • Campus Disciplinary Hearings
    • Civil Rights Lawyer Ohio
    • Criminal Defense
    • Divorce and Family Law
    • Mason, OH Domestic Violence Attorneys
    • Experienced OVI Attorneys in Ohio
    • LGTBQ Discrimination Lawyer
    • Title IX Defense Lawyers
    • Academic Misconduct
  • Professionals
  • Engel & Martin, LLC News
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Criminal Cases
    • Business Litigation
    • Campus Disciplinary Hearings
    • Civil Rights Lawyer Ohio
    • Criminal Defense
    • Divorce and Family Law
    • Mason, OH Domestic Violence Attorneys
    • Experienced OVI Attorneys in Ohio
    • LGTBQ Discrimination Lawyer
    • Title IX Defense Lawyers
    • Academic Misconduct
  • Professionals
  • Engel & Martin, LLC News
  • Contact Us
Call
Contact
Blog

Intoxilyzer 8000

Intoxilyzer 8000

Mary K. Martin is the former head of the Department of Health’s Alcohol and Drug Testing program. In that role, she was responsible for the implementation of the Intoxilyzer 8000.

Ohio Drivers who have DUI/OVI cases on the Intoxilyzer 8000 should contact Mary K. Martin at 513-445-9600 or by email to discuss their individual circumstances.

In a recent case, the Ohio Supreme court held that the approval of a breath-analyzer machine by the director of the Ohio Department of Health as a device to test breath-alcohol concentration does not preclude an accused from challenging the accuracy, competence, admissibility, relevance, authenticity, or credibility of specific test results or whether the specific machine used to test the accused operated properly at the time of the test.

The case is Cincinnati v. Ilg, Slip Opinion No., 2014-Ohio-4258.

The case started in 2011. The defendant lost control of his vehicle while driving in Cincinnati, Ohio, and struck a fence, a sign, and a pole. He was later arrested for drunk driving, or operating a vehicle under the influence (“OVI”, also known as “DUI”). He submitted to a breath test. An Intoxilyzer 8000 machine measured his breath-alcohol concentration at 0.143, beyond the amount permitted by law of 0.08.

The defendant sought to discover information about the Intoxilyzer 8000, including diagnostic and calibration checks, maintenance, service, and repair records, radio frequency interference test records, and any computerized or downloaded information or data from the specific Intoxilyzer 8000 machine used to test him. “He also sought data from that machine not only as it related to his test, but also for three years prior to his arrest and for three months following it.” He also sought information about the machine from the Ohio Department of Health, as well as its communications with the manufacturer. The Department responded that some of the data sought by the defendant would be expensive and exceedingly difficult to produce.

The judge ruled that the State could not use the results of the breath test without producing the information.

The city appealed, arguing that under a prior Supreme Court decision, State v. Vega, a defendant cannot seek discovery for the purpose of attacking the reliability of the breath testing instrument. In the Vega case, the Supreme Court had held that once a breath testing machine had been approved by the Department of Health, a drunk driving suspect may not present expert testimony attacking the general scientific reliability of approved test instruments.

In later decisions, the court explained that although an accused may not challenge the general accuracy and scientific reliability of the machine, an accused “may still challenge the accuracy of his specific test results.” The court explained the impact of these decisions on the Intoxilyzer 8000: “the General Assembly has delegated to the director of ODH the authority to adopt appropriate tests and procedures to chemically analyze specified bodily substances to ascertain the concentration of alcohol, drug, controlled substance, or a combination thereof in those bodily substances and issue permits to qualified persons to perform those analyses. . . . The director has decided that Intoxilyzer 8000s, when used in accordance with department regulations, are capable of accurately measuring breath-alcohol concentrations . . . and an accused therefore may not attack the general scientific reliability of that machine test.”

The court found that the data sought by the defendant was relevant to demonstrating the inaccuracy of the defendant’s breath test on the night of his arrest. Thus, the data should have been produced.

The implications of this case are significant. The court held that the approval of the Intoxilyzer 8000 by the Ohio Department of Health as a device to test breath-alcohol concentration “does not preclude an accused from challenging the accuracy, competence, admissibility, relevance, authenticity, or credibility of specific test results or whether the specific machine used to test the accused operated properly at the time of the test. Thus, an accused may challenge the accuracy of specific test results rendered by a breath-analyzer machine.”

Mary K. Martin, who now practices as a defense attorney representing drivers in OVI/drunk driving cases, was the prior program director responsible for the implementation of the Intoxilyzer 8000. She testified in this case. She explains that the case means that defendants facing drunk driving charges are now entitled to discovery of relevant evidence to support a claim that the Intoxilyzer 8000 machine used failed to operate properly.

Primary Sidebar

RAPID RESPONSE

Are you facing a criminal charge and need to contact someone quickly? Fill out the form below. Or contact our law firm to schedule an appointment by calling us at (513) 445-9600 or email us now!

*All fields are required. Please contact us at the number above if you do not have a case number.

Practice Areas

  • Business Litigation
  • Campus Disciplinary Hearings
  • Criminal & Civil Appeals
  • Civil Rights Lawyer Ohio
  • Criminal Defense
  • Divorce and Family Law
  • Mason, OH Domestic Violence Attorneys
  • Experienced OVI Attorneys in Ohio
  • LGTBQ Discrimination Lawyer
  • Title IX Defense Lawyers
  • Academic Misconduct

Testimonials

It is [the accused student’s] good fortune to have as their attorney Josh Engel, whose practice is largely centered on suing universities . . . on behalf of plaintiffs who faced discipline for sexual misconduct by campus disciplinary proceedings
– The Atlantic, June 1, 2018

View All Testimonials

Footer

© 2021 Engel & Martin, LLC.
All rights reserved | Marketing by NLM | SITEMAP
DISCLAIMER

Contact Info

Mason Office:
4660 DUKE DRIVE, SUITE 101
MASON, OHIO 45040

513-445-9600 Click to Text

513-492-8989 (Fax)

Email Us

We are available here

DISCLAIMER: Please be advised that this web site is designed for general information only. Accordingly, the information presented at this site should not be construed to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Please keep in mind that the success of any legal matter depends on the unique circumstances of each case: we cannot guarantee particular results for future clients based on successes we have achieved in past legal matters.

Disclosure: The laws governing legal advertising in the State of Ohio require the following statement: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT.

Quick Info

  • Home
  • Criminal Cases
  • Professionals
  • Engel & Martin, LLC News
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 · Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in