Top Nevada DUI Lawyer Explains How To Challenge Intoxilyzer 8000 DUI BREATH TEST RESULTS

As you can well imagine, arrests for drunk driving are a common problem in Nevada, in particular, in the city of Las Vegas where many people often lose themselves in the debauchery. The fact is, you can be leaving dinner after consuming a glass or two of white wine and eating a full meal, but when given a roadside sobriety test you might fail even though there is no impairment. A mistake like this by the police department can have drastic effects on your freedom, family, and job status especially if this is your second or third DUI.

In commenting on the prosecutors and DUI cases in Las Vegas, criminal defense attorney Micheal Pariente states, “The prosecutors and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department of Nevada Highway Patrol claim that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is a 100% accurate machine. If it tests your breath, and it says that you are a 1.5 (or whatever) that it can’t be disputed, and you’re doomed and have no defense.”

Famed DUI expert John G. Watkins comments, “This is false. They want individuals to believe that if you get tested and are over the limit that you lose, so don’t bother to hire a lawyer because you can’t win, and again that’s absolutely false. For example, let’s talk about the breath machine. These devices are based upon false presumptions.”

Mr. Watkins, who is widely considered the preeminent DUI attorney in the State of Nevada, goes on to lay out a litany of reasons why today’s DUI Breath Test equipment is far from infallible:

1. They are based upon what we call a 2100 to 1 ratio. That means a certain amount of alcohol in the breath is equal to a certain quantity in the blood. We know that ratio varies with individuals and when it’s below the ratios below 2100 that say about 1,700, that is an effective .04 right off the top.

2. Law enforcement never checks a suspect’s temperature, and this has an extreme effect on results. Not everyone’s temperature is 98.6, but if you don’t have a temperature of 98.6, this tremendously skews the readings.

3. The Intoxilyzer 8000 doesn’t detect alcohol molecules only. It can only identify a particular portion of the molecule. So they just assume that it’s alcohol, and other molecules share the same band, but they just want us to believe that it’s all alcohol. I’m talking about hermadiquete, which is the solid particles in the blood. It’s critical because more solid particles, with the less water, means a higher reading. The machine is based upon 4545 Hermadiquete, and it varies so for example if you have an individual that has 54 versus 45 which the device presumes, again you’re talking about another .03 points of inaccuracy.

4. The Intoxilyzer 8000 is subject to operator manipulation. What that means is the officer can have people keep blowing and obtain a higher reading.

5. With blood, it’s the same scenario. They want you to believe that the gas chromatograph is infallible. If you look at United States Supreme Court case law dealing with blood samples, you will see the studies show that there’s challenges dealing with the accuracy and the gas chromatography. Individuals have legitimate arguments to defeat this presumption that because you’ve been blood tested, it indicates you automatically lose!


Of course, if you’ve been arrested or charged with driving under the influence here in Nevada, or failed a DUI Breath Test, give us a call. We’re more than happy to talk to you over the phone if you’re calling from out of state. If you’re here in Las Vegas, sit down with us, we are more than happy to talk about how we can help you.

About John G. Watkins:

He has since ran his own legal practice for over 33 years focusing on Civil Litigation and Criminal Defense work. He is AV rated by Martindale Hubbell with a perfect 5. He is licensed to practice law in Nevada. He was admitted to the Nevada State Bar in 1980, the U. S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit in 1983, and the United States Supreme Court in 1986. John G. Watkins rose to fame in the early 2000’s with a nationally televised trial of one Jessica Williams.



Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966) >>> Read More

You Are Not Alone!

We are taking calls 24 hours a day, and would love to talk to you about your case, free of charge.

Call (702) 966-5310

Call (702) 966-5310
Send SMS Text