Monder Law Group - News
Understanding Title 17 Requirements in a San Diego DUI Case
Provisions that are violated from California Title 17 regulations are the following:
Section 1219.1. Blood Collection and Retention (b) states that there should be enough blood collected in order to duplicate determinations. (e) mentions that the blood sample must be deposited into a clean, dry container and closed. (1) states that alcohol or other organic solvent cannot be used to clean a container. (g) states that in order to allow for analysis by the defendant, the remaining portion of the sample must be secured for a year.
Section 1219.2 Urine Collection and Retention (a) the only approved urine sample must be collected no sooner than twenty minutes. (b) the specimen must be placed in a clean and dry container. (c) in order to allow for analysis by the defendant, the remaining portion must be secured for a year.
Section 1219.3 Breath Collection states that a breath sample should be expired which are essentially alveolar in composition. The quantity of the breath sample must be measured by direct volumetric. After the breath sample was observed for at least fifteen minutes, the sample could be collected.
Section 1222.1 Forensic Alcohol Laboratory Records states that each laboratory which is licensed to perform forensic alcohol analysis must keep (1) an up-to-date record of their employees who are licensed or qualified as forensic alcohol supervisor and alcohol analysts, (2) a list of employees who are forensic alcohol analyst trainees, (3) records of samples that are analyzed by a laboratory, (4) records of the quality control program, (5) records of laboratory performance evaluation in alcohol analysis, (6) records determining the accuracy of breath testing tools and (7) records and records of such training provided to persons who operate breath testing tools.
People v. Adams. Based on the results of breath alcohol tests, Adams (Appellants) was convicted of violating Cal. Vehicle Code § 23152. Appellants challenged their convictions by arguing that the laboratory failed to comply with the calibration procedure. The court disagreed with the Appellants and held that the breath testing equipment was properly functioning, the administered test was proper and the operator was qualified. Section 1222.1 of the Cal. Vehicle Code was not violated.
If you have any questions about your DUI case in San Diego, please contact San Diego DUI attorney Vik Monder at 619.405.0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Lawyer
