Missouri Code of State Regulations › Title 19 - DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES › Division 25 - Missouri State Public Health Laboratory › Chapter 30 - Determination of Blood Alcohol by Blood, Breath, Saliva, and Urine Analysis; and Determination for the Presence of Drugs in Blood, Saliva, and Urine › Section 19 CSR 25-30.060 - Operating Procedures for Breath Analyzers

Current through Register Vol. 49, No. 14, July 15, 2024
PURPOSE: This amendment removes the references to two
				  (2) instruments that are no longer used for evidential testing in
				  Missouri.
(1) When using
				Alco-Sensor IV with printer, the procedures on the form included herein shall
				be performed and the form shall be completed (see form #8).
(2) When using Intox DMT, the procedures on
				the form incorporated within the instrument software shall be performed and the
				form shall be completed (see form #11 included herein for example).
(3) When using Intoxilyzer, Model 8000, the
				procedures on the form incorporated within the instrument software shall be
				performed and the form shall be completed (see form #12 included herein for
				example).
(4)When using Intox EC/IR
				II, the procedures on the form incorporated within the instrument software
				shall be performed and the form shall be completed (see form #13 included
				herein for example).
(5) The
				fifteen- (15-) minute observation of the subject, which is the second procedure
				on the forms in sections (1)-(6) of this rule, shall be done by a current Type
				II or Type III permit holder. The observation period is intended to ensure that
				any alcohol in a test subject's mouth has time to dissipate before a breath
				sample is taken so that mouth alcohol does not affect the accuracy of a test
				result. A fifteen- (15-) minute observation period is deemed to be sufficient
				for the dissipation of any mouth alcohol to a reasonable degree of scientific
				certainty.
(6) Results of subject
				tests shall be recorded on the operational checklist in a manner consistent
				with the breath analyzer's digital display and/or printout. For example, if the
				display and/or the printout reads one hundred forty-nine thousandths percent
				(0.149%), the result shall be recorded as one hundred forty nine thousandths
				percent (0.149%).
(7) Operational
				Checklists and breath tests completed prior to the effective date of this rule
				shall be considered valid if such tests were completed in compliance with the
				rules in effect at the time the test was conducted. Operational Checklists and
				breath tests completed within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this
				rule shall be considered valid if such tests were completed in compliance with
				the rules in effect at the time the tests were conducted or the rules in effect
				immediately prior to the effective date of this rule.
(8) When using the Alco-Sensor IV with
				printer, the use of the Manual button shall not be allowed to obtain a breath
				alcohol test result from a subject.
Click to view
				  image
Click to view
				  image
Click to view
				  image
Click to view
				  image
*Original authority: 192.006, RSMo 1993, amended 1995;
					 306.114, RSMo 1993, amended 2004, 2005, 2008; 306.117, RSMo 1993, amended 2005,
					 2008; 577.020, RSMo 1977, amended 1982, 1983, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2006; 577.026,
					 RSMo 1982; and 577.037, RSMo 1982, amended 1983, 1988, 1993, 1996, 2001.
Eckhoff v. Director of Revenue
, 745 S.W.2d 815
					 (Mo. App. 1988);
Director of Revenue v. Martin
, 752 S.W.2d 453
					 (Mo. App. 1988). Fo r purpose of breath analysis tests, the procedural
					 components of these tests include the testing techniques and methods, the
					 qualifications of the person administering the tests, and the nature and
					 description of the equipment and devices to be used. The designation of
					 approved suppliers of test ampoules for breathalyzer test was procedural only
					 and would be applied retrospectively.
Stuhr v. Director of Revenue
, 760 S.W.2d 127
					 (Mo. App. 1988). Though the operational checklist which was used differed from
					 the rule, the checklist exceeded the minimum established requirements and
					 provided a proper foundation for admitting the results of the breath
					 test.
Stuhr v. Director of Revenue
, 760 S.W.2d 127
					 (Mo. App. 1988);
Bradford v. Director of Revenue
, 735 S.W.2d 208
					 (Mo. App. 1987). The time and date component of the BAC Verifier is a separate
					 component from that of the sample collection portion of the unit. The wrong
					 date or time on the printout is not evidence of a
					 malfunction.