© GBI-DOFS 2021

G EORGIA B UREAU OF I NVESTIGATION

D IVISION OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

2021 R EVISION

I NTOXILYZER 9000
G EORGIA OPERATOR ’ S REFRESHER
TRAINING MANUAL

1
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

DISCLAIMERS

All training materials contained herein were developed by the

Georgia bureau of investigation
and are delivered in cooperation with the
Georgia state patrol.
Logistical training support is provided by The
Georgia public safety training center
Governors office of highway safety
And
criminal justice coordinating council

While the administrative, procedural, and clerical steps de-

scribed in this manual are intended to be used to assist in
training operators in the best practices for breath alcohol
testing, this manual should not be construed as the official
method for breath alcohol testing which can be found in GBI
Rule 92-3.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 40-6-392 the Georgia bureau of investiga-

tion promulgates official methods for chemical testing of al-
cohol in breath. These methods can be found on file at the of-
fice of the secretary of state, rules of the Georgia bureau of
investigation 92-3.

http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/pages/GEORGIA_BUREAU_OF_INVESTIGATION/IMPLIED_CONSENT/
index.html

The information contained in this manual is intended for edu-

cational purposes and reference use only, it does not consti-
tute legal advice and neither GBI, GSP, GPSTC, GOHS, CJCC nor the
author is responsible for the misuse or misrepresentation of in-
formation contained herein.

The right to reproduce the information contained herein is

reserved.

Note on the 2021 revision: The intent of the 2021 revision to the Intoxilyzer 9000 Georgia Op-
erator’s Training manual is to inform operators of relevant legal, administrative, and operational
issues potentially affecting evidential breath alcohol testing in the state of Georgia. It should be cau-
tioned however, that the Intoxilyzer 9000 Georgia Operator’s Training Manual is intended to be a
training supplement and should not be construed as an establishment of official testing methods as
described in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated which can be found in GBI Rule 92-3. Please
note that the new Georgia Implied Consent Notice became effective April 28 th 2019.

2
© GBI-DOFS 2021

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

Introduction 4-5

Foundations of Chemical Testing

Legal Foundations for Chemical Testing 6-13

Intoxilyzer 9000 Operational Principles and Practices

Functional Overview of the Intoxilyzer 9000 14

The Intoxilyzer 9000 Question Sequence 15-17
The Intoxilyzer 9000 Test Sequence 18-23
The Intoxilyzer 9000 Breath Test Report 24-25
Summary of Breath Test Report Fields 26
Evaluation of Sample Results 27-30
Interpreting Breath Sample Profiles 31-32
Breath Alcohol Limitations 33-38
Summary of Instrument Evaluation 39
Summary of Breath Alcohol Limitations 40
Summary of Common Instrument Display Messages 41-42

Tables and Appendices

Appendix A: GBI Rule 92-3 43-49

Table 1: Guide to Estimating Alcohol Concentration 50
Useful Links and Documents 51
Alcohol Screening Devices 52
Example 1: Certificate of Inspection 53
Appendix: Select/Recent Court Decisions Affecting DUI 54-67
Dry Gas Ethanol Standard FAQs 68

3
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

INTRODUCTION

Since the dawn of the automotive age alcohol consumption has been inextricably linked to public safety. As
early as 1904, investigators started to notice a growing link between the consumption of alcoholic beverages and motor
vehicle involved fatalities. In the ensuing years, scientific research was successful in determining a direct correlation
between a motorist’s alcohol level and their risk of motor vehicle fatality. This ultimately culminated in the establish-
ment of the first DUI legislation that directly defined permissible alcohol levels in the driving public in 1939. Once
established, this legislation created a new challenge for law enforcement officers seeking to enforce it. Due to the
fleeting nature of alcohol in the human body, the obtaining of search warrants for the timely collection of specimen
became a limiting factor in the enforcement of DUI laws. To resolve this problem New York state passed the first Im-
plied Consent law in 1953. This Implied Consent law conditionally granted driving privileges to the motoring public in
exchange for implied consent to test their blood, breath, or urine for alcohol if probable cause existed to believe they
were DUI.

In order to protect the motoring and boating public, Georgia has passed its own DUI and Implied Consent laws
that can be found in Titles 40 and 52 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.). Some of the laws direct-
ly pertaining to DUI are as follows:
O.C.G.A 40-5-55: Georgia’s Implied Consent Law
This law states that any person who operates a motor vehicle on the roads of Georgia and is
arrested for the offense of DUI shall be deemed to have given consent to chemical testing in
order to determine if they are driving under the influence.
O.C.G.A 40-5-67.1: Georgia’s Implied Consent Notice.
This law defines the warning read to motorists arrested for DUI informing them of the Implied
Consent Law. Please note that this warning was recently revised effective April 28th 2019.
O.C.G.A 40-6-391: Georgia’s DUI Statute.
This law defines driving under the influence in Georgia.
O.C.G.A 40-6-392: Chemical Testing Statute.
This law defines the requirements for chemical tests performed in conjunction with the Im-
plied Consent and DUI statute.
O.C.G.A 40-1-1: Title 40 Definitions.
This statute defines alcohol concentration in terms of blood and breath pursuant to chemical
testing.
O.C.G.A 52-7-12: Georgia’s Boating Under the Influence Statute.
This statute defines both boating under the influence and the requirements for chemical testing
of individuals suspected of BUI.

Under O.C.G.A. 40-6-392 the legislature has established the legal criteria for chemical tests requested as part
of a DUI arrest. This statute requires that chemical tests be performed according to methods approved by the
Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Specifically the Division of Forensic Sciences (DOFS) is statutorily required to:
• Approve satisfactory techniques and methods to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals
to conduct analyses
• Issue permits to conduct analyses
• Issue requirements for properly operating and maintaining testing instruments
• Issue certificates that instruments have met the approval requirements of DOFS

4
© GBI-DOFS 2021
Where can the official method, approved by the GBI for breath alcohol testing, be found?

In accordance with this authority and obligation, the Director of DOFS has approved breath alcohol testing as
an approved method for alcohol analysis when performed by a certified operator on an approved breath testing instru-
ment. The official method for breath alcohol testing can be found in the Rules and Regulations governing Implied Con-
sent - GBI Rule 92-3 (Appendix A).
Pursuant to GBI Rule 92-3:
(12)(a) The methods approved by the Division of Forensic Sciences for conducting an evidential breath alcohol
analysis shall consist of the following:
(1) the analysis shall be conducted on an approved instrument as defined in 92-3-.06 (5).
(2) the analysis shall be performed by an individual holding a valid permit, in accordance with Rule 92-
3-.02 (2); and
(3) the testing instrument shall have been checked periodically for calibration and operation, in accord-
ance with Rule 92-3-.06 (8)(a);
Thus, in order to ensure that a breath test is admissible pursuant to the approved method, GBI Rule 92-
3, the operator should ensure that they possess a valid permit, are conducting the test on an approved instrument, and
that the instrument has received a valid inspection.

What instruments are approved for breath alcohol testing?

Pursuant to GBI Rule 92-3-.06:
(5) Breath tests other than the original alcohol-screening test shall be conducted on a breath alcohol analyzer
approved by the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences or his or her designee. Any other type of breath
alcohol analyzer not specifically listed in this paragraph must be approved by the Director of the Division of
Forensic Sciences or designee prior to its use in the State.
(a) The Intoxilyzer Model 5000 manufactured by CMI, Inc. is an approved instrument for breath alco-
hol tests conducted on or before December 31, 2015;
(b) The Intoxilyzer Model 9000 manufactured by CMI, Inc. is an approved instrument for breath alco-
hol tests conducted on or after January 1, 2013;
This means the Intoxilyzer 9000 is currently the sole approved instrument for evidential breath alcohol testing in
Georgia.

Can a PBT be used to test a DUI suspect?

The GBI has approved a variety of portable breath testing (PBT) devices for alcohol screening of DUI suspects.
These devices are approved for use in determining whether an individual is positive or negative for alcohol during
pre-arrest screening, but are not intended to be used to determine the subject’s exact alcohol concentration for evi-
dential purposes. For a complete list of approved PBTs, please see the Useful Links and Documents section of this
manual on page 62 or Alcohol Screening Devices on page 63.

5
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

LEGAL FOUNDATIONS FOR CHEMICAL TESTING

P RESENTED WITH INPUT FROM G EORGIA PAC

In order to obtain a chemical test result that will be useful in adjudicating DUI cases, law enforcement officers
should be careful to consider several foundational principles when making decisions regarding events leading up to the
chemical test. This will ensure that the arresting officer will properly meet both the legal and scientific criterion neces-
sary for an admissible breath test. While the circumstances surrounding a DUI arrest may vary, the following sections
outline several key concepts that should be carefully considered by law enforcement officers when determining the best
course of action.

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

The majority of chemical tests requested by an officer will arise out of a violation of O.C.G.A. 40-6-391, com-
monly known as the DUI statute. A close reading of this statute reveals that there are nine different ways that a motor-
ist can be found to be “driving under the influence” under Georgia law.

Defining DUI: O.C.G.A 40-6-391

DUI Less Safe DUI Per Se Alcohol Other
(concentration defined as DUI)
(a)(1) Alcohol (a)(3) Inhalants (a)(5) 21 & older (k)(1) Under 21 (i) Child Endan-
( 0.08 or greater) (0.02 or greater) germent
(a)(2) Drugs (a)(4) Combination (i) Commercial MV (a)(6) Per Se
(0.04 or greater) Drugs

Thus in most DUI investigations there are two primary questions that must be evaluated:
1. Was the motorist driving or in physical control of a moving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol,
drugs, and/or inhalants to the extent that it was less safe for the person to drive?
2. Was the motorist driving or in physical control of a moving vehicle while the person’s alcohol concentra-
tion was at or above the “per se” limit at any time within three hours of driving from alcohol consumed
before the driving ended?

While the first question can frequently be addressed through the observations and evaluations made by the in-
vestigating officer, to sufficiently answer the second question the officer must obtain a chemical test result. If a
blood or breath alcohol test result is obtained, O.C.G.A. 40-6-392 informs the officer what may be inferred
with regard to whether the motorist was under the influence of alcohol. Even though motorists with alcohol
concentrations of 0.05 or less may be inferred not to be under the influence, they are in violation of O.C.G.A.
40-6-391 if their alcohol concentration is found to be above the “per se” limit as defined in (a)(5), (i) or (k)(1).

Before a motorist can be arrested for DUI, an officer must perform an investigation to determine whether or
not probable cause exists to believe that motorist is in violation of O.C.G.A. 40-6-391. Most DUI investigations con-
sist of three phases:
1. Vehicle In Motion: The officer must decide whether or not to stop the vehicle.
2. Personal Contact: The officer must decide whether or not to further detain the subject and have them exit
the vehicle.
3. Pre-arrest Screening: The officer must decide whether or not sufficient probable cause exists to arrest the
subject for DUI.

6
© GBI-DOFS 2021
Vehicle in Motion / Stopping the Vehicle

It must be understood that when an officer directs a driver to bring his or her vehicle to a stop, they are seizing
the vehicle and its contents. Because the U.S. Constitution protects the citizens against unreasonable searches and sei-
zures, the officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion of possible criminal activity to stop a vehicle and
briefly detain its occupants . (Arizona v Johnson 555 US 323,327 (2009), Chandler v Miller 520 US 305,308 (1997)
Ivey v State 310 Ga App 796 (2009))

Reasonable articulable suspicion can be defined as, specific, articulable facts sufficient to give rise to a rea-
sonable suspicion of criminal conduct . This suspicion should be based on the totality of the circumstances and could
include: objective observations of the officer, known patterns of certain kinds of law breakers, and/or inferences drawn
and deductions made by trained law enforcement personnel. In DUI related cases, articulable suspicion for a stop is typi-
cally developed through:
1. Observation of a traffic violation.
2. The collective knowledge of the police. (e.g. Information relayed to an officer regarding a motorist’s behav-
ior –State v Pennyman 248 Ga App 446 (2001))
3. Any actions that give rise to a reasonable belief that the suspect is violating the law, even if the officer does
not directly observe a violation occurring. (e.g. weaving within the lane— Semich v State A98A1557 (1998),
Waldron v State 321 Ga App 246 (2013))
It should be noted that the articulable suspicion for the stop does not have to be directly related to a DUI offense,
but the officer only needs to establish individualized suspicion of a crime. (Clark v State 243 Ga App 362(2000))

Personal Contact / Detention

Law enforcement officers may detain persons suspected of a crime for a brief period of time for the specific pur-
pose of investigating their suspicions that a crime has been committed. During this time an officer may ask the detainee a
modest number of questions to determine their identity and to try to obtain evidence confirming or dispelling the officer’s
suspicions. During this time officers may ask the suspect to exit the vehicle and participate in pre-arrest screening activi-
ties to determine whether probable cause to arrest the subject exists.
In cases where a motorist is initially stopped for reasons other than suspicion of DUI, an officer may continue to
detain a driver after the investigation of the traffic violation is complete only if the officer has a reasonable, articulable
suspicion that the driver was engaged in other illegal activity. If an officer continues to detain an individual after the con-
clusion of the traffic stop and interrogates him or seeks consent to search without reasonable suspicion of criminal activi-
ty, the officer has exceeded the scope of a permissible investigation of the initial traffic stop. (Weaver v State A20A1046
(2020), Terry v State A20A1627 (2020), State v Drake A20A0248 (2020), Hill v State A21A0264 (2021))

Pre-arrest Screening
In order to arrest a subject for DUI, the officer must have probable cause to believe the driver is in violation of
OCGA 40-6-391. The test for probable cause requires merely a probability that a crime has been committed, less than a
certainty, but more than a suspicion. This means to arrest a suspect for DUI, an officer needs to have knowledge or rea-
sonably trustworthy information sufficient to authorize a prudent person to believe that the suspect was actually in physi-
cal control of a moving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree which renders him incapable of driving
safely. (Slayton v State 281 Ga App 650 (2006), Jaffray v State 306 Ga App 469,473(2010)) The mere presence of alcohol
in the defendant's system is not enough to satisfy the probable cause standard. The investigation must show the defend-
ant's driving ability was impaired by alcohol. (State v. Blanchard, 337 Ga. App 130 (2016)).
In order to determine whether probable cause exists, officers should carefully assess the subject for signs of im-
pairment. Common investigatory tools include observations and evaluations of the subject using field sobriety tests and
portable breath testers (PBTs). (Note: PBT results may only be used to legally establish the presence or absence of
alcohol, not the subject’s exact breath alcohol concentration.) A detainee’s participation in questioning or field sobri-
ety tests is voluntary and failure to participate in these activities cannot form the sole basis for arresting the subject. Un-
less the detainee’s actions or answers give the officer probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, absent oth-
er evidence, the subject must be released. It should be noted that the officer does not have to advise the driver of their
Miranda rights when questioning a detained motorist prior to the point of arrest. (State v O’Donnell 225 Ga App 502
(1997)) The driver’s pre-arrest statements and actions are usually admissible against them in any criminal proceedings.

7
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

Common Tools For Evaluating Probable Cause

Traffic Violations Manner of Driving Manner of Stop Vehicle Condition
Appearance of Driver Driver’s Attire Physical Manifestations Demeanor
Speech Condition of Eyes Odor of Alcohol Admission to Drinking
Details of Drinking Manner of Exit Other Observations SFSTs / PBT results

Arrest

Once the investigation is complete, the officer needs to decide whether or not to arrest the subject. The arrest is
effectuated when the officer makes an overt action to indicate that brief detention has become a formal arrest or the sub-
ject is “in custody”. If a motorist who has been detained in a traffic stop is subject to treatment that renders him “in cus-
tody”, you must advise him of his Miranda rights in order for any post-arrest statements to be admissible as evidence in
a criminal proceeding. Miranda is not required for the admissibility of noncommunicative acts such as submission
to a breath test. (State v Turnquest S19A0157 (2019) ) The test for determining whether or not a subject is under arrest
is whether or not a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have thought that the detention would not be
temporary. (Crider v State 319 Ga App 567 (2013) ) Thus, treatment of a motorist at the scene of the stop may be con-
sidered equivalent to a formal arrest when:
1. The subject is verbally or physically restrained in a way that communicates that he or she is not free
to leave. (Note: Whether or not the officer would have permitted the subject to leave doesn’t deter-
mine arrest. )
2. The driver is detained for over one-half hour, absent exigent circumstances.
3. Part of the detention is spent in the patrol car (for reasons other than safety, weather, etc.).
4. The officer persistently questions the driver in a patrol car, resulting in a confession or other incrimi-
nating circumstances.
5. The driver is a minor and is denied permission to contact his or her parents or guardian.
6. The officer tells the subject they are under arrest or issues them a citation. (See OCGA 17-4-23)

Once the arrest is made, the officer will likely be required to testify about:
1. The basis of the arrest.
2. The circumstances of the arrest.
3. How the officer told the driver of the arrest and the charges.
4. How and when the officer read the driver the Implied Consent Warning.
5. What statements the driver made to the officer.
6. What statements the officer made to the driver.
7. Whether the subject voluntarily consented to the chemical test.

The Implied Consent and Chemical Testing Statutes

Once an arrest is made pursuant to a violation of OCGA 40-6-391 several other statutes begin to impact the of-
ficer’s course of action.
O.C.G.A 40-5-55: Georgia’s Implied Consent Law
• Allows law enforcement to request consent to chemical testing from motorists where probable cause
to arrest for DUI exists.
O.C.G.A 40-5-67.1: Georgia’s Implied Consent Notice. (Revised April 28th 2019)
• Establishes the language of the Implied Consent Warning / Request. (Printed on DDS 354)
• Provides for proper notification of a subject’s rights regarding the administration of chemical testing.
• Allows for the use of search warrants if consent is not granted. (d.1)
• Sets up the process for Administrative License Suspension (ALS).

8
© GBI-DOFS 2021

O.C.G.A 40-6-392: Chemical Testing Statute.

• Allows for chemical testing of motorists.
• Provides the methods by which chemical tests must be performed.
• Establishes legal presumptions of DUI, with regard to chemical test results.
• Sets the framework for the admissibility of chemical test results at trial.

Establishing Grounds for a Search

If the officer chooses to pursue a chemical test, they must obtain a sample of the subject’s blood, urine, or breath.
It should be noted that this is considered a search under both the United States and Georgia Constitutions. The courts
have held that in order for the product of this search to be admissible, a search warrant must be obtained or a valid
exception for a warrantless search must be present. In a DUI case the exceptions typically considered are:
1. Establishment of exigent circumstances. According to the US Supreme Court, “exigency exists when (1)
BAC evidence is dissipating and (2) some other factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement
needs that would take priority over a warrant application.” (US Supreme Court No 18-6210 Mitchell v Wis-
consin, also see 11-1425 Missouri v McNeely)
2. Obtaining the voluntary consent of the subject. The tool that should be used to secure voluntary consent
in most cases is the Implied Consent warning found in OCGA 40-5-67.1. This being said, the court has dis-
tinguished voluntary consent from implied consent. While a subject’s privilege to drive can be suspended
for failing to provide a sample under Implied Consent, free and voluntary consent to the chemical test must
be obtained prior to effectuating the search or seizure of a blood, breath, or urine sample absent a warrant or
other valid warrant exception. (See Ga Supreme S14A1625 Williams v State ).

Obtaining Consent

In most cases, in order to obtain voluntary consent to chemical testing the subject must be notified of their rights
under the Implied Consent law. This is usually accomplished through the reading of the Implied Consent Notice found
on DDS form 354 at the time of arrest; reading Miranda is not required. This Implied Consent card directly quotes
OCGA 40-5-67.1 and contains different warnings for subjects age 21 and older, drivers operating a commercial motor
vehicle, and subjects under age 21. The arresting officer must read the correct Implied Consent warning to the driver at
the time of the arrest, not later, unless exigent circumstances warrant a delay. It is advisable to bring a copy of the
Implied Consent Warning to any hearing or trial. Do not attempt to advise the driver or testify about the contents of the
Implied Consent Warning from memory. Be sure to request that the driver submit to the test or tests you designate and be
sure to articulate the manner in which the subject consented. If voluntary consent to submit to the chemical test can not
be clearly established, the subject should be considered to have refused testing.

Analyzing Voluntary Consent: Under Georgia law, voluntariness must reflect an exercise of free will, not
merely a submission to authority. In other words the court must consider whether a reasonable person would feel
free to decline the officer’s request to search. In making this determination the court is obligated to consider fol-
lowing factors: 1) prolonged questioning , 2) the use of physical punishment or coercion, 3) the accused’s age, 4)
level of education, 5) intelligence, 6) length of detention, 7) the advisement of constitutional rights*, and 8) the
psychological impact of a submission to authority. The court has ruled that confusion due to high levels of intoxi-
cation can affect a person’s capacity to voluntarily consent. (State v Jung A16A0527)

*Note: O.C.G.A. 40-5-67.1 states if the Implied Consent Notice “is used by a law enforcement officer to advise
a person of his or her rights regarding the administration of chemical testing, such person shall be deemed to
have been properly advised of his or her rights under this Code section”

9
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

Guidelines for Obtaining a Chemical Test Under Implied Consent

If the officer chooses to request that the subject voluntarily consent to a chemical test, they must read the
appropriate Implied Consent Warning to the subject. In order for this request to be considered valid, the warning
must be read:
1. After the point of arrest. (Hough v State S05G0311 and Handschuh v State S06G0640 )
Note: An officer may request a chemical test under Implied Consent without formal arrest if the sus-
pect is involved in an accident with serious injuries or fatalities and probable cause to arrest for
DUI exists.
2. As close to the point of arrest as possible. (Perano v State 250 Ga 704, 708 (1983) )
3. Without alteration to the substantial meaning of the warning. (State v Nolen 234 Ga App 291 (1998))
4. In English (Furcal-Peguero v State 255 Ga App 729, 733 (2002) )
Note: If after reading the Implied Consent Notice in English, the subject indicates that they do not
understand, re-read the notice and ask again if they will consent to the test. It becomes apparent that
their failure to respond is due to a failure to understand English, the officer is not legally required to
provide a translation of the Implied Consent Notice. However, in this circumstance, after reading the
notice in English, it may be prudent to ask the subject if they will voluntarily consent to a test in a
language they understand. In most circumstances it is not advisable to attempt to interpret the legal
advisement of rights contained within the Implied Consent Notice; however, pursuant to OCGA 24-6
-653 a reasonable attempt must be made to provide a translator for hearing impaired subjects.
5. Must result in the voluntary consent of the suspect or must be considered a refusal.
Note: This means that samples taken from subjects that are unconscious or rendered otherwise
incapable of giving voluntary consent must be done through the use of a warrant or establishment
of exigent circumstances. ( Ga App. A16A0200 Bailey vs State )

After reading the Implied Consent Warning, if the driver requests an attorney, clearly inform the arrestee that
they do not have the right to speak to an attorney when deciding whether to submit to a chemical test. (Rackoff v State
281 Ga App 306 (2006) ) After the driver submits to the designated tests, the officer is required to make a reasonable
attempt to accommodate any request made by the driver for an independent test. It is the responsibility of the driver to
pay and make arrangements to have the independent test samples analyzed.

Is obtaining a breath sample as search incident to lawful arrest a permissible exception to the warrant rule?

In 2016, the US Supreme court ruled in Birchfield v North Dakota (14-1468) that breath testing could be univer-
sally performed without a warrant as a search incident to a lawful arrest. This exception applied only to breath and not
to blood tests. The Georgia Supreme Court later found in Olevik v State (S17A0738) that the method of obtaining a
sample utilized by breath testing instruments implicates the subject’s right against being compelled to actively partici-
pate in acts that generate incriminating evidence. Thus, due to logistical and legal constraints, the only way to en-
sure a legally admissible breath alcohol test in Georgia is to obtain the voluntary consent of the subject. Converse-
ly, the normal collection of blood and urine were not deemed violative of a subject’s right against compelled acts.

Refusals

The Implied Consent warning affords the arrested driver the opportunity to refuse voluntary submission to chem-
ical testing; however, this does not preclude the officer from ultimately obtaining a search warrant. In the event of a re-
fusal, the officer must send a notice to suspend the suspect’s Georgia driving privileges within ten days of arrest to the
Department of Driver’s Services. (See DDS Form 1205) The suspended driver may then request an administrative or
OSAH hearing to determine whether sufficient grounds existed for the suspension.

10
© GBI-DOFS 2021

Pursuant to OCGA 40-5-67.1 (g)(2) the scope of this hearing should be limited to:

1. Whether the officer had probable cause to believe the defendant was in violation of OCGA 40-6-391.
2. Whether the officer properly advised the defendant of their rights by reading the appropriate Implied Consent
notice.
3. Whether the defendant refused the test OR
4. Whether the test showed an unlawful drug or alcohol concentration AND whether the test was administered
by a person possessing a valid permit on an instrument approved by the GBI with all of its parts attached and in
good working order as prescribed by the manufacturer.

Any subject who does not voluntarily consent to chemical testing pursuant to the reading of the Implied Consent
Warning is deemed to have refused testing. The refusal to provide a blood or urine sample can be entered as evi-
dence against the defendant at trial and creates a legal inference that the tests would have shown the presence of drugs
or alcohol. This along with other evidence can be used to establish circumstantial evidence of intoxication. It should be
noted that some subjects will deliberately refuse the chemical test without any verbal indication of their intention to re-
fuse. The following are some examples on non-verbal refusals:
1. Silence in the face of a request. (Miles v State 236 Ga App 632 (1999) )
2. Repeated demands for an attorney (Fairbanks v State 244 Ga App 123 (2000) )
3. Faking a sample / Intentionally providing an Insufficient Sample (Hunt v State 247 GA App 464 (2000) )
4. Dilatory Tactics (Miles v Smith 239 Ga App 641 (1999) )

Based on current Georgia law can the refusal to provide a breath sample be entered into evidence against a de-
fendant at a criminal trial?
As discussed previously, because a subject must actively participate in providing a breath sample during testing,
they cannot be compelled to submit to a breath test under the Georgia Constitution. In Elliott v State (S18A1204), the
Georgia Supreme Court ruled that a subject’s decision to invoke the right against compelled breath testing cannot
be held against them at a criminal trial. If a subject refuses or fails to provide a breath sample, the officer should
strongly consider re-reading the Implied Consent Notice and requesting a blood test if they intend to preserve evi-
dence of the refusal for the criminal trial. A refusal to submit to a blood or urine test under Implied Consent should
be admissible in any criminal trial. Additionally, the court’s decision in Elliott should have no bearing on the admissi-
bility of breath test refusal evidence at ALS hearings. It was due to the court’s decision in Elliott that the Implied Con-
sent Notice was modified effective April 28, 2019 to remove any suggestion that a refusal to provide a breath sample
would be used against a defendant at trial.

What if someone changes their mind after initially refusing to give consent?

Georgia law requires that the driver be advised of his Implied Consent rights on the scene of the arrest. If the driver re-
fuses the tests, you may not administer a chemical test to the subject unless the subject first withdraws their refusal or a
warrant is obtained. Georgia courts have ruled the driver has the right rescind a refusal and take the test with no pen-
alty under some circumstances (Howell v. State, 266 Ga App 480 and Dept. of Public Safety v. Seay, 206 GA App.71).
However in order for a rescission to be valid it must meet the following criteria:
1. It must be done within a short and reasonable time.
2. The test must still be accurate.
3. The testing equipment must still be readily available.
4. It must not result in a substantial inconvenience or expense to the police.
5. The subject must be in the custody of the arresting officer and under observation the entire time since arrest.

11
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
Law enforcement personnel may ask a subject who refuses a chemical test if they would like to withdraw their
refusal, but must be careful not to coerce the subject (State v Quezada A08A1803). As of 2006, OCGA 40-5-67.1 (d.1)
allows for the obtaining of samples for chemical testing from a refusing subject by means of a properly executed search
warrant.

Independent Tests

When the driver agrees to the requested test, the Implied Consent Law entitles the subject to request an independent
chemical test from qualified personnel of their own choosing and at their own expense, after they have submitted
to the state’s test. This does not mean that the arresting officer must personally guarantee that the independent test is
obtained, but they must make a reasonable attempt to accommodate any reasonable request for independent test-
ing by the subject. In the event that an independent test request from a subject seems unreasonable, the officer should
make every effort to come to a mutually agreeable resolution with the subject; however, if one can not be obtained, the
court does not require officers to honor unreasonable requests. In determining whether a request for independent testing
is reasonable the officer should weigh the following factors. (Ritter v State 306 Ga App 689,690 (2010) ):
1. The availability of or access to funds to pay for the test.
2. A protracted delay in giving the test if the officer complies with the suspect.
3. The availability of police time and other resources.
4. The location of the requested facilities.
5. The opportunity and ability of the accused to make arrangements personally for testing.

Submission to the Tests

When the driver agrees to the requested test, the Implied Consent Law requires the chemical test to be adminis-
tered under the direction of the arresting officer. This does not mean that the arresting officer must personally adminis-
ter the tests or even observe the entire process. The test(s) can be performed by a certified Intoxilyzer™ 9000 operator or
by other qualified personnel in the case of blood and/or urine. The arresting officer should however be able to testify
from first hand knowledge that the requirements for an admissible chemical test were fulfilled or the test result may not
be admissible. The requirements for admissibility of a chemical test of a defendant’s breath are found in OCGA
40-6-392 and GBI Rule 92-3 and state that the test must be performed:

Element Citation Met by

On an instrument approved by the GBI GBI Rule 92-3.06(12)(a)(1) GBI Rule 92-3.06(5)(b)
Breath Test Report
Installation letter *( rarely re-
quired)
By someone possessing a valid permit GBI Rule 92-3.06(12)(a)(2) Operator’s Permit
OCGA 40-6-392(a)(1)(A)
On an instrument receiving a valid GBI Rule 92-3.06(12)(a)(3) Certificate of Inspection correlat-
ing to the Date of Last Inspection
periodic inspection
listed on the report.
On an instrument with all of its parts OCGA 40-6-392(a)(1)(A) Operator’s testimony
attached and in good working order as Quarterly Inspection
prescribed by the manufacturer Breath Test Report
• Instrument diagnostics
• Air Blanks
• Dry gas calibration check
Two sequential breath samples shall OCGA 40-6-392(a)(1)(B) Breath Test Report
not differ from each other by an alcohol • Breath Sample Results
concentration of greater than 0.020
grams

12
© GBI-DOFS 2021

So how should an officer obtain a breath sample for chemical testing ?

There are many considerations that need to be taken into account when determining whether to arrest
a suspect and request a chemical test. Below is an example of some of the considerations and questions an
officer might reasonably contemplate when deciding to request a chemical test.

Do not Arrest for DUI

No
Articulable Suspicion Briefly Detain the
Probable Cause to Ar-
to stop or investigate the Yes Suspect and Investi-
rest for DUI?
motorist? gate

Arrest for Obtain a Blood Sample

No

DUI based on exigency.

Do not Stop or Detain
the motorist

Yes
Is blood necessary Can the motorist Is there a clear and
or warranted? Yes give voluntary No pressing health, safety,
consent to or law enforcement
search? need that would take
No

priority over a war-

rant application?

Read Implied Con- Read Implied Submit a 1205

sent and ask for
No
Consent and and charge with
Breath ask for Blood Refusal
Is a search
charge with warrant fea-
DUI less safe No sible / rea-
sonable?
Was voluntary Was voluntary
consent ob- consent ob- Obtain a Blood
tained? Yes Sample
tained?
Yes
Yes

Obtain Search
Obtain a Breath Submit a 1205/1205S if the result is Warrant for
Sample greater than “per se” limit. Blood Sample

13
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

F UNCTIONAL O VERVIEW OF THE I NTOXILYZER 9000

3 9
4
8
7
5
2

12
15
10 13
14 16
11

# Part Name Description

1 Touch screen Windows CE based user interface with on screen keyboard option.
2 Breath hose Site of sample introduction, electronically heated and monitored by I9000.
3 Dry Gas Tank 0.080 g/210L target value dry gas ethanol standard from an approved vendor.
4 Gas Delivery System Includes a mounting bracket and an electronically controlled gas regulator
5 Storage Compartment Two heated compartments, typically used for mouthpiece storage.
6 Power Switch—2nd Can be used to turn the I9000 on/off if the primary power switch is on.
7 Dry Gas Cover Lockable cover for the dry gas ethanol standard.
8 USB Ports-Side 2 USB ports for peripheral devices such as the printer or external keyboard
9 Simulator Ports Connection points for area supervisor’s wet bath simulator.
10 Dry Gas Connectors Gas connector (top) and electronic gas sampler controller connect (bottom)
11 Ethernet Connection Ethernet/Network connection, not currently utilized.
12 USB Ports-Back 2 USB ports for peripheral devices such as the printer or external keyboard
13 Modem Connection Modem connector to analog phone line, not currently utilized.
14 AC Power Connect Connector for primary AC power cord.
15 Power Switch—Primary Primary power switch for the I9000
16 Pedestal Adjustable pedestal for adjusting the instrument height.
14
© GBI-DOFS 2021

THE INTOXILYZER 9000 QUESTION SEQUENCE

Starting the Test and Login
In order to conduct an evidential breath test on an Intoxilyzer 9000, all operators will be required to login using a
predefined login name and PIN. This login process is designed to ensure that each type of user has access to the menu
functions appropriate to their responsibility. In order to initiate an evidential breath test the operator must push the green
button in the bottom right hand corner of the instrument’s touchscreen. The operator will then be prompted to login with
their login number and pin:

1. All operators will be given the same login ID and PIN.

2. Each login ID is assigned a specific level of access based on the individual’s level of responsibility.
3. Operators are permitted to run tests, run instrument diagnostics, and reprint tests.

Instrument Question Sequence

Prior to running a test, the Intoxilyzer™ 9000 requires that the operator provide specific information related to the test.
During the instrument question sequence the operator will be asked to provide four types of information:
1. Operator Information (Includes Operator Name, Permit Number and Expiration Date).
2. Arresting Officer Information (Includes Name and Arresting Officer’s Agency).
3. Subject Information (Includes Name, DOB, Gender, and Driver’s License Number.)
4. Incident Information (Includes Violation Date and Time, Case Number, and Reason for Test.)

Operator Information
Operators will be prompted to provide the following information. This information should be reviewed carefully
before selecting the advance screen arrow at the right of the instrument display. (Note: Operators should be careful not
to leave the default “Standard Operator” information when completing the pre-test questions. )
1. Operator Last Name: Enter the operator’s last name and any suffix (i.e.: Jr., Sr., III, etc.)
2. Operator First Name: Enter the first name as it appears on the operator’s permit (no rank, nickname, or other
title)
3. Permit Number: Enter the permit number as it appears on the operator’s permit.
4. Expiration Date: Enter the permit expiration date as it appears on the operator’s permit.
Note: Tests run after the permit expiration date are not considered valid and the operator must renew
their permit before conducting a breath test.

15
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
Arresting Officer Information

Once the operator has entered the required information and selected the screen advance arrow, he or she will be
asked whether the arresting officer is the same as the operator. If yes is selected then the arresting officer last and first
name fields will be automatically populated with the operator’s name. If no is selected, the information must be manual-
ly entered by the operator.

5. Arresting Officer Last Name: Enter the officer’s last name and any suffix (i.e.: Jr., Sr., III, etc.)
6. Arresting Officer First Name: Enter the officer’s first name (no nicknames, titles, etc.)
7. Arresting Officer Agency: Enter the arresting officer’s agency as close to the following format as possible.
City or County name followed by PD or Co SO. (e.g. Atlanta PD, Hall Co SO,GSP Post 10, DNR region 3 ).
It is important the agency names are consistent within a given agency in the event that the arresting agency needs
to be identified at a later time.

Subject Information

8. Subject Last Name: Enter the subject’s last name and any suffix (i.e.: Jr., Sr., III, etc.)
9. Subject First Name: Enter the subject’s first name (no nicknames, titles, etc.)
10. Subject M.I.: Enter the subject’s middle initial if one is known. (no nicknames, titles, etc.)
11. Subject Date of Birth : Enter the subject’s date of birth in the format MMDDYYYY. If the subject’s DOB
can not be determined then enter the current date.
12. Gender : Select the subject’s gender. If in question, the specified gender may be found on the subject’s driv-
er’s license. In the unlikely event the subject’s gender can not ultimately be determined from the information
available, select the unknown / unspecified gender option.
13. Subject DL Number : Enter the subject’s driver’s license number. It is advisable to enter the two letter state
abbreviation prior to the driver’s license number so that out of state drivers’ licenses can be more easily identi-
fied. If the driver’s license number is unknown at the time of the test, type UNKNOWN.
Note: Typically the subject’s driver’s license is the best source for subject information.

16
© GBI-DOFS 2021

Incident Information

Once the operator has entered the required information and selected the screen advance arrow, he or she will be
asked to enter Incident Information.

14. Violation Date: Enter the violation date in the format MMDDYYYY
15. Violation Time: Enter the violation time in 24 hour format (e.g. 0300 or 2100)
16. Case Number: Enter the an agency case number if desired. This field is optional.
17. Reason for Test: Select the reason for the test from the list box by using the arrows to the right of the box.
The available options are as follows:
• DUI - The test is the result of a DUI arrest
• Crash – The test is the result of a DUI arrest where a crash is involved
• Fatality – The test is the result of a DUI arrest where a fatality is involved.
• BUI - The test is the result of a boating under the influence arrest
• Probation – The test is conducted as part of a probation revocation or evaluation.
• Training – The test is to be solely used as a training sample.
• Other – The test is being conducted for reasons other than those listed above.
• QC - Reserved for quality control tests performed at the direction of GBI-DOFS.
Note: The “reason for test” selection has no bearing on the reliability of the test and should be based
on the operator’s best estimation of the circumstances at the time of testing.

17
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

THE INTOXILYZER 9000 TEST SEQUENCE

The Intoxilyzer™ 9000 will perform a breath alcohol test after all of the pre-test questions are answered. Before
starting the test sequence the instrument will ask the operator if they would like to review the information. This gives the
operator the opportunity to check spelling and correct any errors prior to running the test. Once the test sequence is un-
derway, the information supplied by the operator cannot be changed. The test sequence executed by the Georgia Model
Intoxilyzer 9000 is ADABACAWDABA where each letter corresponds to a component of the test. The various compo-
nents of this testing process are designed to verify that the instrument, testing environment, and breath sample are all
conducive to accurately measuring the breath alcohol concentration. Each element is summarized below.
Diagnostics (D) ADABACAWDABA
As seen in the test sequence above, prior to testing each breath sample, the
instrument performs an electronic self diagnostic. Though it does not test every part
of the instrument, the self diagnostic is designed to verify that the unseen, inter-
nal electrictronic components are attached and functioning as expected. Most
importantly the diagnostic verifies the performance of primary critical components
of the instrument’s optical bench including the detector and infrared light source.

Intoxilyzer 9000 Self Diagnostic

Element What it checks Typical Warnings Corrective Action
Analytical Checksum Software for corruption. Checksum Violation* *Place out of service and con-
tact Area Supervisor.
Software is busy, attempt an-
Software Version Software for availability. Incompatible Software
other test.
Voltage/Current Voltage and current reading Various: V or Current Sense Power cycle instrument and
from various internal sensors. Errors. (12V, 5V, 3.3V,USB, attempt another test.
Printer, pump, temp., etc.)
Memory The capacity of both the RAM Various: Memory Errors Complete test, but contact
and storage memory. area supervisor.

Real Time Clock The performance of the time RTC Error Power cycle instrument and
keeping circuit. attempt another test.
Temp Regulation Temperatures of the internal Various: Temp Sensor Error Power cycle instrument and
components, sample chamber, or Temp out of range. attempt another test.
and breath hose.
ADC The performance of the analog ADC Read, Range, or Span Power cycle instrument and
to digital converter. Error attempt another test.
Analytical Status Verifies the performance of IRPCM Status Error Power cycle instrument and
the IR control module. (light attempt another test, if the
source and detector) I9000 is not locked out.
ITP Verifies that a reduction in IR ITP Out of Tolerance Allow the instrument to stabi-
output will result in a specific lize and then attempt another
reduction in detector signal. test. If the problem persists,
(This relationship is deter- contact the area supervisor.
mined during the instrument’s
ITP adjust.)

Note: While most diagnostic failure warnings are due to temporary stability issues that can be addressed by additional
warm up time, chronic failures should be reported to local area supervisors for further evaluation.
18
© GBI-DOFS 2021
Air Blank (A) ADABACAWDABA
Unlike the diagnostics which are designed to be a self check of various internal, electronic components, the air
blank routine tests the condition of the instrument’s breath sample pathway as well as the operating environment at the
time of testing. Simply stated, Air Blanks are used to purge the instrument with ambient air and then verify that
the instrument is alcohol free both before and after every subject sample, calibration check and diagnostic. If this
is successfully accomplished the instrument will print Air Blank .000 on the final breath test report.

What happens during the Air Blank?

During the Air Blank, the instrument : Air Blank / Purge
1. Purges the breath sample pathway by pulling ambient air into Simulator connect
the breath hose and through the sample chamber using an in-
ternal pump. Ultimately the air escapes out of an external vent.
2. Continuously measures the alcohol level in the sample cham- valves
ber using the detector and signals the pump to continue purg- Dry gas
ing until the instrument is alcohol free or a specified time limit
has been exceeded. Vent/Outlet
3. Informs the operator whether or not the detector returned an Pump
acceptable alcohol free reading at the conclusion of the Air Breath hose Breath outlet
Blank. If the instrument can not purge the sample chamber
and produce an acceptable, alcohol free result, it will return an Sample chamber
“Ambient Fail” or “Purge Fail” warning and abort the test. valves
Detector
4. Sets a zero reference measurement for the test using the am- Source
bient air in the sample chamber if the purge was successful.

What should the operator do during the Air Blank? *Illustration only, not an exact representation of parts.
As with all elements of the breath test, the operator should continue to monitor the subject, instrument, and envi-
ronment during the Air Blank. Because the instrument is attempting to purge the sample chamber with air from the am-
bient environment, it is important that the test be conducted in a well ventilated environment. Several things should be
considered when determining whether a well ventilated environment for testing exists:
1. Environment: Fumes from chemicals such as those found in cleaning supplies or paints may be sufficient to pre-
vent the instrument from obtaining a zero reference measurement if present in large amounts in the testing environ-
ment. If you smell a strong chemical odor in the testing environment, ventilate the area before testing.
2. Proximity: Subjects with high BrAC values or who emanate a strong odor of alcohol may contribute significant
alcohol to the testing environment if they are in a confined space with or in proximity, too close to the instrument.
It is advisable to have subjects remain a reasonable distance from the instrument’s breath hose during Air Blanks to
reduce the likelihood of Ambient Fail, Purge Fail, and Calibration Out of Tolerance warnings .
3. Procedure: Mouthpieces restrict air flow through the instrument during the Air Blank and may prevent it from
properly purging. In addition, the mouthpiece can contain condensation from the subject’s breath, and thus should
be promptly removed after the subject finishes providing a sample as instructed by the instrument.
Note: The use of alcohol containing hand sanitizers, cleaners, or aerosol based disinfectants in close
proximity to the instrument or immediately prior to testing should be avoided when possible.

What happens if the environment during the Air Blank contains alcohol or other chemicals?
In most instances, alcohol or other chemicals in the ambient environment are not sufficient to have a significant
effect on a breath test and the Air Blank will indicate an alcohol free condition by printing Air Blank 0.000 on the test
report. If the Air Blank fails to produce an alcohol reading that falls below a predefined threshold, the instrument will
return an “Ambient Fail” or “Purge Fail” warning and abort the test. In the unlikely event that alcohol exists in the
instrument sample chamber at the conclusion of the Air Blank in a concentration below the “Ambient Fail” threshold,
the Intoxilyzer 9000 will set the zero reference level at an alcohol concentration greater than zero. This effectively
means that any BrAC measurement directly following the Air Blank will be lower than the actual value by an amount
roughly equivalent to the amount of alcohol remaining in the instrument at the end of the Air Blank. While this should
have minimal impact on subject test results, it may in some instances cause the instrument’s dry gas calibration check
to yield a value that is lower than the acceptable range resulting in a Calibration Out of Tolerance warning.

19
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

Breath Test/ Breath Sample (B) ADABACAWDABA

Once the Air Blanks and Diagnostic are successfully completed, the instrument will proceed to request a breath
sample from the subject by displaying “Please Blow” on the screen. When this occurs, the operator should:
1. Insert a new mouthpiece securely into the breath tube. A new mouth piece should be used for each sample.
Operators should avoid using alcohol based hand sanitizer immediately prior to handling the mouthpiece.
2. Instruct the subject to take a deep breath, put their mouth on the mouthpiece making a firm seal and blow
into the mouthpiece hard enough to keep the tone sounding and for as long and as steady as possible. Simp-
ly put, subjects should take a deep breath and give a long, steady exhalation as if trying to blow up a balloon.
3. Encourage the subject to blow until they are physically unable to provide any more air or until the in-
strument indicates that it has completed receiving the sample.
The subject has three minutes to provide an adequate breath sample that meets the requirements for flow, vol-
ume, and level slope. If the subject stops blowing before providing an adequate breath sample, “PLEASE
BLOW” will continue to be displayed. In addition, a beep will sound every few seconds until the subject begins
blowing or until the test is terminated. If the subject does not provide an adequate breath sample within three
minutes, the instrument will terminate the test and print “INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE” on the final report.
How does the operator ensure that they get an adequate breath sample?
It should be understood that the ability of an operator to obtain an adequate sample for testing largely depends on the
cooperation and, in rare instances, the health of the subject. In order to keep the operator informed of the subject’s pro-
gress in providing an adequate breath sample, the Intoxilyzer 9000 will display several key metrics relative to the sub-
ject’s breath flow, volume, and alcohol concentration. The operators should use these metrics to assess the subject’s
compliance and further instruct the subject how to provide a good breath sample if necessary. These metrics include:
• Volume: This indicates the total vol-
ume delivered in the current exhala-
tion. The Intoxilyzer 9000 requires a
measured breath volume of 1.1 L or
more during a single exhalation. Flow bar
• Volume Progress Bar: Shows a (should be
graphical representation of the volume green if suf-
delivered during the exhalation. Total volume delivered ficient)
• Flow Bar: Shows a graphical repre-
sentation of how hard the subject is
blowing. The color of this bar will Volume progress Exhalation
indicate whether the subject’s breath time in sec.
flow is acceptable. Subjects should
blow hard enough to maintain a
green color for as long and as steady as
possible. If the breath flow rate is be- Total time since start of sample
low 0.15 L/sec, the bar will appear
yellow and the subject needs to blow harder. If the subject blows too hard, the flow bar will appear red. If
this happens the subject should stop blowing and re-attempt to provide a sample with a longer, more steady
exhalation.
• Blow Time: Shows the time elapsed since the current exhalation began.
• Elapsed Time: Shows the total time elapsed since the breath sample was requested by the instrument. An
insufficient sample will be registered if a sufficient sample has not been provided within 3 minutes.
• Breath Profile: Shows a time history plot of the subject’s BrAC and breath flow during the elapsed sample
time. A subject’s breath flow curve should show a steady, sustained flow above the minimum line and the
BrAC curve should typically show a steady rise followed by a gradual leveling off. The Intoxilyzer 9000
requires the subject to keep the breath flow above the minimum long enough to obtain at least 1.1 liters of
volume and blow until the BrAC curve exhibits an acceptably level slope. To this effect, the primary pur-
pose of the breath profile is to provide immediate feedback to the operator about whether or not the
subject is complying with their instructions, so they can better facilitate an optimal sample from the
subject or articulate why a sufficient sample was not obtained. (See example on following page.)

20
© GBI-DOFS 2021

Flow Curve: Shows a graphical representation of

the subject’s breath flow rate during the test. The
units of the graph axis are L/sec *100. The instru-
ment will cease accepting the sample when the
flow drops below 0.15 L/sec or a displayed read-
ing of 15, which is indicated by a dotted line.

BrAC Curve: Shows a graph of the change in alco-

hol level as the subject blows. No values for the
BrAC curve are displayed. This is to ensure that
neither the subject’s nor the operator’s actions are
affected by a knowledge of the BrAC. Note: No
BrAC curve will be visible on the screen or
printout when the subject’s breath flow is below
0.15 L/sec.

What if the subject refuses to provide an adequate sample?

There are two basic types of refusals that an operator may encounter during a breath test:
Verbal Refusals: Should the subject verbally refuse to provide a
sample after the test begins, the operator can select the REFUSED
button at the lower right hand corner of the instrument display.
Once the subject begins blowing this option will disappear.
Non-verbal Refusals: As previously discussed, if the subject does
not provide a breath sample within three minutes that meets the
minimum criteria for flow, volume, and level slope, the Intoxilyz-
er 9000 will print an Insufficient Sample Warning on the breath
test report in lieu of an alcohol level. Unless there is a medical or
physical limitation that prevents the subject from providing
enough air, failure to provide an adequate sample can be construed
as a non-verbal refusal. At this point the operator may want to ask the subject if they possess any medical limita-
tions that would have prevented them from providing an adequate sample. Relevant observations regarding how
a subject failed to provide an adequate sample can be noted in the additional comments box that appears at the
conclusion of the test.
Regardless of the underlying cause, the arresting officer may want to consider re-reading the Implied Con-
sent Warning and requesting a blood sample if a sufficient sample cannot be obtained due to the fact that a
refusal to provide a breath sample cannot be entered into evidence at a criminal trial. (See the discussion of
Elliott v State (S18A1204) on page 11)
Once the subject sample is complete, the Intoxilyzer 9000 will evaluate the breath sample and environmental
conditions to ensure that no limitations to producing an accurate measure of the subject’s BrAC exists. If no limitations
exist, the instrument will then proceed to the next test element. Neither the operator nor the subject will know the meas-
ured alcohol level until the final report is printed. A discussion on the elements evaluated by the instrument to determine
if conditions for accurate testing exists can be found in the Breath Alcohol Limitations section of the manual.

Calibration Check (C) ADABACAWDABA

The Intoxilyzer 9000 is configured to check its own calibration using an external reference or standard as part of
the test sequence. This test is known as a dry gas calibration check or Dry Cal Chk for short. The purpose of the Dry
Cal Chk is to verify that the instrument is working properly and producing results with the expected degree of
accuracy. Upon initial instrument set up, a cylindrical tank containing a compressed gas of known ethanol level is at-
tached to the instrument. The expected alcohol level in this tank is known as the target value for the calibration check.
During the Dry Cal Chk, the Intoxilyzer 9000:
1. Releases gas from the tank into the instrument’s sample chamber.
2. Measures the alcohol level in the dry gas.
3. Compares the reading to the expected target value for the tank.

21
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

How does the operator know if the Dry Cal Chk passed?
Though the target value for all dry gas ethanol tanks utilized in the state of Georgia should be 0.080 g/210L, the
Dry Cal Chk will pass if it returns any value within +/- 5% or +/- 0.005 g/210L of that target. In practical terms the
adjusted alcohol measurement obtained during the Dry Cal Chk must be between 0.075 and 0.085 g/210L. (Note:
a result of 0.075 or 0.085 is acceptable) Ultimately a passed Dry Cal Chk tells us that the instrument is working properly
and producing results with the expected degree of accuracy at the time of the test.
What is meant by the term adjusted alcohol measurement?
In reality the actual amount of ethanol in the fixed volume of gas delivered from the compressed ethanol gas
standard varies slightly based on the atmospheric pressure. Thus, the target value listed on the tank specifically reflects
the ethanol concentration at standard atmospheric pressure. Instead of changing the target value each time the environ-
mental pressure changes, the Intoxilyzer 9000 is equipped with a barometric pressure sensor that automatically adjusts
the reported Dry Cal Chk value based on the difference between standard atmospheric pressure and the pressure meas-
ured at the time of the test. Though dependent upon weather and elevation, the range barometric pressures found
throughout the state of Georgia would not be expected to cause the ethanol gas standard concentration to vary by more
than approximately +/-5% of the target value stated on the gas cylinder. It should be noted that even though atmospheric
pressure can have a small effect on the concentration of ethanol obtained from a gas standard during a dry gas calibration
check, atmospheric pressure has no significant effect on a subject’s measured breath alcohol concentration.
Why is there a permissible range of +/- 0.005 g/210L for the Dry Cal Chk?
As we will discuss later in this manual, all measurements have some degree of uncertainty associated with them.
In order to correctly interpret the significance of a Dry Cal Check result, the amount of expected uncertainty or variabil-
ity in the results must be understood. In reality, the manufacturer only certifies that alcohol level in the dry gas ethanol
tank is within +/- 0.002 g/210L of 0.080 at normal standard pressure. Additionally, CMI lists the uncertainty in the
I9000 calibration as +/- 0.002 g/210L. Taking these things into account along with the estimated accuracy of the baro-
metric pressure sensor, it can be expected that a properly functioning instrument will return Dry Cal Chk results between
0.075 and 0.085 g/210L over 99% of the time provided no adverse environmental or tank related factors exist.
What happens if the Dry Cal Chk is not within the acceptable range?
If the measured alcohol level at the conclusion of the Dry Cal Chk is not within the acceptable range, the instru-
ment will abort the test and return a Calibration Check Out of Tolerance warning. An Out of Tolerance Dry Cal Chk
will result in the disabling of the instrument, preventing any tests from being run until the underlying issue is addressed.
(See Summary of Common Instrument Display Messages for a further discussion of corrective steps.) The primary caus-
es of an Out of Tolerance Warning are:
1. Environmental: As previously discussed, low level environmental alcohol can cause an elevation of the
zero reference baseline established after the Air Blank. This can effectively cause the measured alcohol lev-
el to be lowered by an amount equivalent to the alcohol level in the ambient air around the instrument. Ven-
tilation of the testing environment should effectively resolve this issue.
2. Gas Delivery: When the pressure in the dry gas ethanol tank approaches that of the ambient environment, it
lacks sufficient pressure to deliver consistent samples to the instrument. This means when the tank is ap-
proaching empty or is improperly installed, it may deliver samples that are not exactly 0.080 g/210L. Addi-
tionally, ethanol gas standard can degrade over time causing them to deliver samples that have a lower alco-
hol level than the stated target value. In these cases, an Out of Tolerance reading is not reflective of the
instrument’s calibration, but of the composition of the dry gas sample. Re-installation or replacement of
the gas tank should effectively resolve gas related issues.
3. Instrumental: If environmental and gas delivery issues have been eliminated as potential causes of an Out
of Tolerance Warning, it is possible that there is an underlying instrumental issue. If ventilation of the test-
ing environment and replacement of the gas tank does not resolve the Out of Tolerance warning, the area
supervisor should be contacted so they can assess whether an underlying instrument problem exists.
Note: A link to the list of approved dry gas standards can be found in the Useful Links and Documents section of this manual (p. 60)
22
© GBI-DOFS 2021

Wait (W) ADABACAWDABA

Following the Dry Cal Chk (C) and the subsequent Air Blank (A), the instrument will initiate the Wait (W) ele-
ment of the test as seen in the sequence above. The Wait is simply a 60 second timer that is designed to expire before
the instrument will move on to the next Diagnostic (D). Ultimately this will result in a total time of approximately 5
minutes between subject samples. The exact time between subject samples will vary based on several factors including
the subject’s willingness to immediately provide a sample when told to blow. The intermission between breath samples
provides the subject with sufficient time to recover from giving the first sample. In addition, as discussed in the Breath
Alcohol Limitations section of the manual, obtaining replicate samples from the same subject at least 2 minutes
apart is an important component of the instrument’s safeguards against residual or mouth alcohol. Though it is
very unlikely that a subject is affected by residual or mouth alcohol at the time of a breath test, the operator should use
the wait between samples to continue to observe the subject for any overt signs of regurgitation.

When the wait is complete, the instrument will repeat the sequence of Diagnostic, Air Blank, Breath Sample, Air
Blank. While a complete breath test generally consists of two breath samples, if the subject refuses to provide a
second sample, the first sample is legally admissible as evidence of his or her alcohol concentration provided it
produces a valid, printed numerical result. Though the subject is not legally required to provide two breath samples,
obtaining two subject samples is preferred because it allows the operator to demonstrate:
• That the breath alcohol concentration obtained from the subject was reproducible and not adversely affected
by some single unexpected event .
• That any potential difference in the breath alcohol concentration owing to how the subject provided the sam-
ples is minimal. Potential differences in the measured BrAC due to sampling variability are accounted
for by charging the subject with the lower of the two results and applying a measurement uncertainty
of +/-5% or 0.005 g/210L, whichever is higher.
• That residual or mouth alcohol did not have any significant effect on the breath alcohol readings.

Once the test is completed, the instrument will ask the operator for any additional comments. Though this field
will usually be left blank, it gives the operator an opportunity to add any additional comments about the subject’s perfor-
mance during the breath test or the testing conditions. These comments should be primarily used to:

• Explain any unexpected results (i.e. Operator inadvertently hit radio

transmit button during the test causing RFI warning)
• Describe any non-compliant behaviors (i.e. the test subject would
not make complete seal with mouth around the mouth piece, no tone
or breath volume measurement was displayed by the instrument)
• Document any unusual conditions that were present or arose during
the test. For all testing done in mobile testing environments, the
additional comments should be used to document the temperature
of the testing environment. (i.e. temperature at the time of the test
was 72F) Testing environments should be maintained between 60 and
93 Fahrenheit during the administration of breath tests.

After adding any necessary comments, the operator will be asked how many copies of the breath test report are desired.
The operator should sign the breath test report on the line provided for the operator’s name and give the test sub-
ject a copy of the completed report. In addition, the operator should place a copy of the breath test report in the
GBI test logbook.

23
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

* EXAMPLE REPORT

24
© GBI-DOFS 2021

THE INTOXILYZER 9000 BREATH TEST REPORT

The Intoxilyzer 9000 prints the breath test result on a full 8.5” by 11” sheet of copy paper using a Windows CE
compatible printer. The Intoxilyzer 9000 breath test report contains information divided into several major sections. A
summary of the information printed on the breath test report is as follows:
Header Information

Georgia Model Intoxilyzer 9000 shows that the instrument model was configured for use in Georgia.
Test ID# is a unique record number for each test. If evaluation of electronically retained data is needed, the test
can be identified by the Test ID. (The clearing of instrument records can result in duplication of the TestID. )
Date shows the date the test was performed.

Instrument Info

Instrument Serial Number shows the unique identification number for the instrument.
Software Version shows the software version number installed on the instrument at the time the test was run.
Agency shows the agency to which the instrument is registered. This should also reflect whether the instrument
is listed as a mobile instrument. (E.g. Atlanta PD mobile unit)
Target Value shows the target value of the dry gas standard in g/210L. Thus, a 0.080 g/210L target value
would be displayed as 0.080.
Lot # shows the lot number for the current dry gas standard.
(Target value and lot # are entered by the agency contact or area supervisor at the time of tank installation.)
Subject Info and Operator Info

Most of the fields contained within the Subject Info and Operator Info sections of the report with the exception
of Measured BrAC are entered by the Operator and discussed in the Intoxilyzer 9000 Question Sequence section
of this manual. Measured BrAC will be addressed in the following section titled Evaluation of Sample Results.
A summary of all of the fields on the breath test report can be found in the table on the following page.

25
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
Summary of Breath Test Report Fields
Field Location Description Other Notes
Georgia Model Header Shows the type of instrument used.
Intoxilyzer 9000
Test ID Header Unique record # for the test Automatically assigned by the I9000
Date Header Date of the test Automatically assigned by the I9000
Inst Serial # Inst. Info Unique # assigned to the instrument Number is located on sticker on breath
hose side of the instrument.
Software Ver- Inst. Info The software version being used by Software is updated periodically as needed.
sion the instrument at the time of the test New versions of software do not invalidate
test run with previous ones
Agency Inst. Info Agency to which the I9000 is as- Input by the area supervisor at the time of
signed installation.
Target Value Inst. Info The alcohol level in the dry gas Input by area supervisor or agency contact
standard attached to the I9000. during tank installation. Should be 0.08
Lot # Inst. Info # assigned to the batch/lot of gas Should be present on the tank and the pa-
from which the dry gas tank was perwork shipped with the tank.
produced
Subject Name Subject Info. Subject Last name, First and MI. Input by the operator.
Measured BrAC Subject Info. The lower of the breath sample re- Will remain blank if there are not two breath
sults (+/- measurement uncertainty) sample results present.
DOB Subject Info. Subject’s date of birth in the format If it is unknown at the time of test use the
MM/DD/YYYY. date of the test as DOB.
DL Subject Info. Subject’s drivers license #. If unknown designate as unknown.
Gender Subject Info. Subject’s gender. Can be male, female, or unknown.
Reason for Test Subject Info. The reason for the test as best un- Must be selected from a list of choices.
derstood by the operator. Tests listed as other should be clarified in
the additional comments .
Additional Com- Subject Info. Additional comments added by the May be left blank. Should be used to clarify
ments operator at the time of test. or document info. related to the test.
Operator Name Operator Info Operator first and last name. Preferably as it appears on the permit.
Permit # Operator Info Unique # assigned to the operator. Should be 6 digits.
Expiration Date Operator Info Date the operator permit expires. The test must be run between the permit
issue date and expiration date.
Arresting Officer Operator Info Arresting Officer first and last name
Arrest. Agency Operator Info Arresting officer’s agency.
Case # Operator Info Agency case # or incident #. Optional field.
Air Blank Result Details Purges and then verifies I9000 is Should read 0.000 for passing check.
alcohol free.
Diagnostics Result Details Electronic self check verifies I9000 Should read Passed.
is operating as expected.
Subject Sample Result Details The subject’s BrAC in g/210L. Measures the last attempted exhalation.
Breath Volume Result Details The vol. of breath delivered in L. Measures the last attempted exhalation.
Dry Cal Chk Result Details The result of the dry gas cal. check. Should be within +/-0.005 of target value.
Breath Profile Profile Curves for breath flow (light) and Dotted line is min breath flow of 0.15L/sec.
BrAC (dark) during entire test. BrAC shows no values, Flow is L/sec *100.
Date Last Cal. Footer The date of the last time CMI adjust- This is only done on an as needed basis.
adjustment ed the instrument’s calibration. Calibration is verified by 17025 procedure.
Date of Last Footer The date of the last quarterly in- This should be done once every quarter
Inspection spection. that the instrument is in service.
Printed On Footer The date the report was printed. This date will differ if a report is re-printed

26
© GBI-DOFS 2021
EVALUATIION OF SAMPLE RESULTS

In addition to the instrument, subject, and operator information, the Intoxilyzer 9000 provides numerous pieces
of information regarding the subject’s test. In order to properly interpret the test result, it is important for the Intoxilyzer
9000 operator to understand the meaning and significance of each of these pieces of information.
Measured BrAC (g/210L)

The Measured BrAC field on the report gives the breath alcohol concentration in g/210L with which the subject
is to be charged and contains several important pieces of information.
1. The first number found in the Measured BrAC field is the lower of the two subject sample results obtained
during test sequence. O.C.G.A. 40-6-392 states that two sequential breath samples will be requested from a
subject for testing and the lower of the two results shall be determinative for accusation and indictment
purposes. Thus, where two consecutive subject sample results exist, the Measured BrAC shows the lower of
the two results. If there are not two breath sample results available, the Measured BrAC field will remain
blank. In addition, O.C.G.A. 40-6-392 states that in order for those results to be admissible they shall not
differ from each other by more than 0.020. If the results do not meet this standard of agreement or any
other warning message is produced, the measured BrAC field will remain blank. In most cases if the
measured BrAC field is blank, the operator does not have an admissible test result.
2. The operator should also note that the Measured BrAC gives the alcohol concentration in g/210L. This is
because O.C.G.A. 40-1-1 defines alcohol concentration as grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or
grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Though an operator will never obtain 210L of breath from a
subject during a single exhalation, if the Measured BrAC value in g/210L exceeds the “per se” alcohol
concentration specified in O.C.G.A. 40-6-391, they are by definition in violation of the DUI statute. Thus it
should be emphasized that the Intoxilyzer 9000 is used to measure breath, not blood alcohol levels.
3. The second number reported in the Measured BrAC field is the estimated measurement uncertainty for
the test result. It is reported as a +/- value and is calculated as +/-5% of the subject’s Measured BrAC or
+/-0.005 whichever is greater. The estimated measurement uncertainty is always truncated to three digits.
(For example: 5% of 0.167 is 0.00835, and thus the expressed measurement uncertainty is given as +/-
0.008.)
How should the operator interpret the Measured BrAC in light of the measurement uncertainty?
In layman’s terms, the measurement uncertainty acknowledges that the subject’s true measured BrAC at the time
of testing could be slightly higher or slightly lower than the measured value given. In the example above, it
cannot be said that the subject’s BrAC was exactly 0.167; however, it can be said with reasonable certainty that
the subject’s true BrAC was within 0.008 of 0.167, or between 0.159 and 0.175 g/210L, at the time of testing.
What do you mean by reasonable certainty?
The existence of measurement uncertainty does not mean that the operator can not be certain of the subject’s
breath alcohol concentration. Instead measurement uncertainty quantifies the degree of certainty in the
“exactness” of a measurement, or how closely a given measurement reflects the object being measured. It is
only fair that the degree of certainty in the test results be made known to the affected individuals. Technically,
reasonable certainty in the case of the Measured BrAC field means that at the 95% confidence level the
estimated interval for uncertainty in the measured result is approximately +/- 5% or +/-0.005 g/210L of the
stated value, whichever is greater. In less technical terms, this basically means that when an Intoxilyzer 9000
test is run on a subject under normal conditions, there is a 95% probability the subject’s true BrAC is within +/-
5% or +/-0.005 g/210L of the average of their two breath sample results. This uncertainty is assessed on the
lower of the two results to further give the subject the benefit of the doubt. In order to expand this probability to
99%, the estimated measurement uncertainty would have to be reported as +/- 7% or +/- 0.007 g/210L,
whichever is higher.
Do other measurements have uncertainty?
Operators should be aware that any analytical measurement process, no matter how well designed, will exhibit
some degree of uncertainty. People will sometimes use terms such as accuracy or margin of error to describe
this uncertainty, though the term preferred by scientists is measurement uncertainty. For an example of
measurement uncertainty, consider a doctor who measures a fevered child’s temperature with an oral
thermometer and obtains a reading of 103.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Let’s then assume he measures same child two
minutes later and obtains a reading of 103.3. What is the child’s true temperature? In reality the doctor may take
27
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
100 readings over a 5 minute period and find that the average temperature reading is in fact 103.4 degrees but
that 95% of all the readings fluctuate between 103.0 and 103.8. This fluctuation in the measured temperature
illustrates the measurement uncertainty of the analytical method. Thus, the child’s true temperature would be
more accurately expressed as a range, such as 103.4 F (+/- 0.4), than a single number. The measurement
uncertainty in this example may be due to instrumental factors such as limitations in the thermometer itself or
sampling factors such as how and where the thermometer was placed in the child’s mouth. Though the
Intoxilyzer 9000 and the breath testing process are designed to minimize the measurement uncertainty in the
analytical result, it can not completely eliminated. Through statistical evaluation of various factors such as
subject tests and control results, the Division of Forensic Science has been able to estimate the measurement
uncertainty for a complete breath test under normal conditions on the Intoxilyzer 9000 as approximately
+/- 5% or 0.005 g/210L whichever is higher. This means that it can be said with 95% confidence that the
subject’s true breath alcohol concentration was no more than 5% or 0.005 g/210L lower than the measured
BrAC value reported by the instrument.

What is the source of uncertainty in breath testing?

Though the measurement uncertainty exhibited by a particular analytical method can have multiple contributors,
sources of measurement uncertainty fall into one of two categories: systematic error or bias and random error.
1. Systematic error or bias occurs when the mean result produced by an analytical method is either
consistently high or consistently low. Through extensive evaluation of known control samples the breath
testing methods used in Georgia have been shown to exhibit no significant systematic error or bias. The term
usually used to describe systematic error is accuracy.
2. Random error arises from random fluctuations in the sample readings that are normally distributed around
some mean value. These random fluctuations are statistically described by the precision of the measurement
and are quantified with statistical terms such as standard deviation and %CV. Random error comprises
almost all of the estimated measurement uncertainty for evidential breath testing.
While a detailed discussion of guidelines for estimation of uncertainty in measurement is beyond the scope of
this manual, operators should understand that the largest contributor to the measurement uncertainty in the
measured BrAC is the natural sampling variability inherent to how the subject provides the breath sample. In
a complete test, the measured BrAC is the product of the analysis of two separate breath samples. Each breath
sample will have a slightly different chemical composition due to its interactions with the subject’s alveolar
blood supply and respiratory tract. These interaction are largely what causes the BrAC curve to rise early during
the exhalation before eventually leveling off. This is a limitation imposed by human physiology, but its effect
on the variability of sample results can be minimized by encouraging subjects to give reproducible, maximum
exhalations. In fact, a study of replicate samples from test subjects shows that variability between samples goes
down as the breath volume delivered goes up. This limitation is one reason that the Intoxilyzer 9000 requires
all breath samples to meet certain criteria before they will be accepted as adequate or sufficient. Ultimately any
breath sample that is composed of air that has not achieved complete chemical and thermal equilibrium with the
pulmonary alveoli will have a alcohol concentration lower than the subject’s actual alveolar alcohol
concentration. In practical terms its is unlikely that a breath sample of 100 % “deep lung” alveolar air will be
obtained during a breath test; however, the more complete the exhalation the more closely the measured BrAC
will resemble the alveolar alcohol concentration.
What is the “0.020 allowable difference” and what does it have to do with the measurement uncertainty?
Operators should be careful not to confuse the 0.02 allowable difference required by OCGA 40-6-392 with the
instrument’s measurement uncertainty which is approximately 5% of the average breath test value. In order for breath
sample results to be legally acceptable in the State of Georgia they must not vary by more than 0.020 grams. To
check any particular test to ensure that it is within the 0.02 allowable difference, subtract the smaller result from the
larger one. If the difference is 0.020 grams or less, the test is acceptable. If the sample results do not exhibit the required
agreement, the test is not acceptable and the Intoxilyzer 9000 will display a message of “No 0.020 Agreement” in the
result details section of the breath test report. If this occurs the operator must wait twenty minutes before retesting the
subject. Note that the operator is statutorily prohibited from obtaining more than two breath tests where an adequate
sample has been provided. Thus, if two consecutive breath tests from the same subject both differ by more than 0.020, a
third breath test can not be requested. In this situation the operator must request a blood test if a chemical test is to be
performed. A lack of 0.020 agreement between samples can be caused by the failure of the subject to provide a
good maximum exhalation as previously discussed, or by the existence of residual mouth alcohol, which will be
discussed in the section entitled Breath Alcohol Limitations.

28
© GBI-DOFS 2021

Result Details
The result details section of the breath test report shows the result of each element of the breath test followed by
any warning messages encountered during the execution of those elements. Operators must reasonably establish that the
Intoxilyzer 9000 was working properly with all its parts attached and in good working order at the time of testing so that
their test results will be both admissible and credible. The information provided in the result details section of the
report should be carefully considered when developing an opinion as to whether or not the instrument was
working properly at the time of testing. Normal details listed on an Intoxilyzer 9000 Breath Test Report include the
result and time of the following test elements:

Air Blank: As discussed earlier, the Air Blank essentially

purges the instrument with ambient air and then verifies the
instrument is alcohol free both before and after every subject
sample, diagnostic, and calibration check . A printed result
of 0.000 indicates that the Air Blank was successful. This
is indicative that the internal components of the breath sample
pathway, such as the valves, switches, tubing, and pump, are
all in good working order and that the environment around the
instrument does not contain significant levels of alcohol or
other volatile chemicals. In the event that the Air Blank is not
successful, the test will be aborted and a warning message
will appear at the bottom of the result details section of the
report. If this occurs the operator should ventilate the testing area before attempting another test.
Diagnostics: As previously discussed, a Diagnostic is essentially an electronic self check of the instrument that
verifies that its unseen, internal electronic components are functioning as expected. A displayed result of
“Passed” indicates that the Diagnostics were successful. If the diagnostics do not pass all of the required
criteria, the breath test will be aborted and Diagnostic Failed will be indicated on the report in the result details
section. The most common cause of a diagnostic failure is a failure to sufficiently warm up the instrument before
attempting a test. Thus, in the event of a diagnostic failure, allow the instrument to stabilize and then attempt
another diagnostic. This can be accomplished by cycling the instrument’s power. Please note that significant
RF in the testing environment during the diagnostic can result in a diagnostic failure warning. Persistent
diagnostic failures or failures resulting in a lockdown of the instrument may indicative of the need for
maintenance. Should this occur, contact your local area supervisor.
Dry Cal Chk: The Dry Cal Check element of the breath test verifies the instrument is functioning as expected
and producing results with the expected degree of accuracy by testing a standard of known alcohol level. A
displayed result between 0.075 and 0.085 indicates that the Dry Cal Chk was successful. The target value,
which should be 0.080 g/210L, and the lot number of the reference gas used to check the calibration can be
found in the Instrument Details section of the report. An approved list of ethanol gas standards and vendors
is maintained by the Division of Forensic Sciences. Be sure to consult the gas standard Material Safety
Data Sheet (MSDS) for safe handling and disposal instructions. See Dry Gas Ethanol Standard FAQs for
further information.
Subject Sample/ Breath Volume: The Intoxilyzer 9000 evaluates each breath sample provided by the subject
to determine if any limitations to providing an accurate measure of the breath alcohol concentration exists. If
such a limitation is identified, the instrument will place an * in the subject sample field and display a warning
message at the bottom of the Result Details section. If a warning message other than Insufficient Sample or
Refused is present, no measured BrAC should be considered for accusation purposes. If no warning
message is displayed on the report, the Measured BrAC should be an accurate reflection of the subject’s
breath alcohol concentration at the time of testing. A discussion of limitations inherent to breath alcohol
testing can be found in the Breath Alcohol Limitations section of the manual.

29
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
Result Details - Breath Sample Profile/ Breath Curves

Breath Flow
BrAC axis Subject Breath Flow axis in L/sec
(no scale or Curve Subject BrAC Curve
*100 ( e.g. 30 =
measure- 0.30L/sec)
ment giv-
en) Minimum Breath
Flow Line - 0.15 L/sec

BrAC Curve Time axis Flow Curve

Legend in seconds Legend

Each time the subject is asked to provide a sample, the Georgia Model Intoxilyzer 9000 will produce a breath sample
profile for the duration of the sample. This profile is a graphical representation of the subject’s breath flow and breath
alcohol concentration. This profile is not intended to be used to provide a numerical measure of the subject’s
breath alcohol concentration, or as a tool to determine whether the subject provided a valid sample, but is meant
to help officers interpret the underlying causes when the Intoxilyzer 9000 flags a particular sample as Invalid or Insuffi-
cient. With regard to this function, the printed breath profile contains several pieces of useful information.

Element Description Requirements Interpretation Notes

Flow A graphical represen- The Georgia Model Intoxilyz- Optimally the breath flow rate will be sus-
(Liters per tation of the subject’s er 9000 will cease accepting a tained above the minimum flow line without
second *100) breath flow rate sample when the flow rate interruption or significant fluctuation for
throughout the entire drops below 0.15 L/s or 15 on as long as possible.
test. the flow axis, as indicated by
Failure to do this may be an indication of non-
the dotted line. Flow rates
compliance from the subject.
below 15 or 0.15 L/sec are
Insufficient.

(BrAC) A graphical represen- Breath samples must achieve The typical breath alcohol profile from a com-
tation of the subject’s a sufficiently level slope to be pliant subject will show an initial rise in the
(No values
breath alcohol con- accepted by the I9000 as suf- BrAC followed by a gradual leveling off.
given)
centration throughout ficient.
the entire test.
Breath samples that show a
rise followed by a significant If a subject attempts more than one exhalation
drop from the peak BrAC dur- during a test or the breath flow temporarily
ing a single exhalation will be drops below the minimum, the breath alcohol
curve may appear broken or disconnected.
flagged as Invalid Samples.
The BrAC curve under this scenario may even
(Note: A second attempt to appear to drop and rise again as the recorded
blow by a subject will natural- BrAC graph connects the final BrAC value
ly show a drop followed by a from the previous exhalation with the BrAC
rise in BrAC, this is not a values from current attempt. This is normal
drop from the peak BrAC and under these conditions and is not an indication
is not an Invalid Sample) of mouth alcohol.

30
© GBI-DOFS 2021
Interpreting Breath Sample Profiles– Insufficient Samples

As stated earlier the breath profile is not intended to be used as a tool to determine whether the subject provided
a valid sample, but is meant to help officers interpret the underlying causes when the Intoxilyzer 9000 returns a
warning message associated with the subject’s breath flow or breath alcohol curve such as Insufficient Sample
or Invalid Sample. In the case of Insufficient Samples, the breath profile serves as a record of how the subject
attempted to comply with the officer’s request to provide a breath sample. Non-compliance with the officer’s
request to provide a breath sample may be an intentional, non-verbal refusal to provide a sufficient sample or
unintentional in cases of severe medical or physical limitations. The breath profile, along with the subject’s own
assessment of their respiratory health, should be used as a tool to assess whether an Insufficient Sample should
be construed as a refusal. (For more information on non-verbal refusals see Komala v State - 237 Ga App 236)

Insufficient Sample – Cause #1:

When looking at the circled exhibit at right, it can
be seen that a breath flow of 0.15 L/sec or
more had not been reached when the subject
stopped blowing. This is indicated by the fact that
the flow curve never gets above the dotted mini-
mum breath flow line. In this particular example
the subject should have been instructed to blow
harder. The displayed breath volume in this case
would have been 0.0L.

Insufficient Sample – Cause #2:

When looking at the circled exhibit at right, it
should be noted that a breath volume of 1.1 L
or more had not been reached when the subject
stopped blowing for any of the three attempts
shown. It can be seen that the breath flow ex-
ceeded the minimum breath flow line, but the
total volume delivered never exceeded the 1.1L
threshold until the last attempt. In this particu-
lar example the subject should have been in-
structed to blow longer.

Insufficient Sample – Cause #3:

Looking at the circled exhibit below it is evident that a level slope in the darker BrAC curve
had not been reached when the subject stopped blowing. This subject had exceeded the mini-
mum flow requirement and had delivered a total volume of 1.28L as indicated in the Result
Details, but the sample was still flagged as Insufficient because the requirement for a level
slope in the BrAC curve was not met. In this particular example the subject should have
been instructed to blow longer.

31
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
Interpreting Breath Sample Profiles — Sufficient Samples
While a useful tool in interpreting the causes of noncompliance in insufficient breath samples, operators should be
careful not to misinterpret the breath profile when a sufficient sample is provided. While a highly compliant subject
will generally produce a smooth continuous breath flow and BrAC curve as seen in the fist example below, a subject
who makes multiple attempts to provide a sample during a breath test may produce a BrAC profile that has an irregu-
lar or broken appearance. These samples are no less valid than the ideal profile, provided no warning message is giv-
en by the instrument.
#1 Good Compliance – At right is an example of a Example #1
subject who showed good compliance to the operator’s
instructions. As you can see the subject immediately
started providing a sample approx. 3 sec into the
test. They provided a steady breath flow well above
the minimum dotted line for 6 sec, and the BrAC
curve significantly leveled out before the subject
stopped blowing. The breath volume for this sample
was 2.9L.

#2 Sufficient/ Valid Sample — This sample ulti- Example #2

mately resulted in a valid test; however, BrAC curve
did not appear until the breath flow reached the
minimum line. This is expected under these condi-
tions. Even though alcohol was present in the initial
breath, the BrAC curve will not be displayed when the
subject’s breath flow is below the dotted minimum
flow line.

#3 Sufficient Sample/ Initial Lack of Compliance -

Initially, the subject stopped blowing before the mini-
mum volume was obtained, stopping at the 8 second
mark. A second attempt was made at the 12 second Example #3
mark. Notice how the darker BrAC curve shows apparent
drop when the new exhalation is attempted. This is nor-
mal and expected and is not indicative of an Invalid
Sample. A drop in BrAC occurs as new breath of lower
BrAC displaces air from the previous exhalation of higher
BrAC. As the subject continues to blow, BrAC will con-
tinue to rise as it approaches a plateau. This second at-
tempt ultimately produced a sufficient sample and re-
sulted in a valid test. The example also shows a brief
interruption of the BrAC curve at 8 & 16 sec when the
flow drops below the min.

#4 No 0.020 Agreement / Sufficient Sample - These Example #4

two breath profiles are from a test that resulted in No
0.020 agreement. As you can see during Breath Sample
1, the subject blew just hard enough to stay above the
minimum flow. The final volume was 1.48L, just above
the min required volume of 1.1L. During Breath Sample 2
the operator noted that the subject repeatedly would start
and stop blowing. The breath flow profile demonstrates
that the subject made multiple attempts but would not
sustain an exhalation within the first 120 seconds of the
test. Finally approximately 160 sec into the test the sub-
ject provided enough volume and flow to meet the mini-
mum requirements for sufficiency. Notice how the breath
flow was not steady, but dropped continuously over the
exhalation. Ultimately the volume delivered in this blow
was 2.36 L. Due to the fact that the subject had a high
BrAC of approx. 0.24, the inconsistent breath volumes
resulted in a lack of agreement between samples.

32
© GBI-DOFS 2021
BREATH ALCOHOL LIMITATIONS
Through over seventy five years of documented research and testing, breath alcohol testing has proven to be an
accurate and reliable means of ascertaining a person’s breath alcohol concentration, leading it to become the most widely
used technique for measuring legal alcohol levels in the United States today. This being said, when evaluating any scien-
tific testing method it is not only important to determine whether it is fit for the purpose for which it was intended, but it
is also important to identify any limitations or conditions that might realistically have a significant affect on the method’s
expected degree of accuracy and reliability. While numerous different claims regarding the limitations of breath alcohol
testing have been evaluated over the years, very few conditions have been actually found to have any significant effect
on an evidential breath testing instrument’s ability to accurately quantify alcohol in a subject’s breath. The few condi-
tions that have been found to potentially affect a breath test result have been specifically addressed through numerous
checks and safeguards incorporated into both the Georgia Model Intoxilyzer 9000 and the breath testing procedures.
Through these checks and safeguards, the Georgia Model Intoxilyzer 9000 is designed to alert the operator when
conditions exist that could potentially impact the expected degree of accuracy and reliability of the breath test and
prevent a numerical result from being reported in the Measured BrAC field. The quarterly inspection is specifically
designed to test the Intoxilyzer 9000’s ability to correctly identify these conditions and notify the operator. Addi-
tionally, operators should focus on the best practices learned during training to prevent these conditions from being pre-
sent during a breath test and should understand the proper action to take should one of these conditions be identified.

S UBJECT /S AMPLE CONDITIONS

1. Insufficient Sample - As previously discussed, a person’s breath alcohol concentration is principally the product of
a continual exchange of ethanol between the pulmonary blood and the alveolar air. When breath moves through the
respiratory tract during exhalation, a significant amount of alcohol can be lost to the cooler airway surfaces until they
reach a balance with the alveolar air. By establishing minimum requirements for breath flow rate, total volume, and
BrAC curve slope, the instrument attempts to ensure that a sample will not be accepted until this loss is effectively
minimized and the measured BrAC is reflective of the alveolar BrAC. This can also be facilitated by encouraging
subjects to provide a maximum exhalation. In reality, even under ideal conditions, any breath sample delivered to
the instrument will have an alcohol concentration lower than that found within the air of the alveoli.
What is a Sufficient Sample?
Technically, according to O.C.G.A. 40-6-392, a sufficient breath
sample is one that produces a printed alcohol concentration
analysis; however in order to produce a printed alcohol concentra-
tion analysis the Intoxilyzer 9000 requires subjects to meet at least
three minimum requirements in single exhalation:
• A breath flow rate of at least 0.15 L/sec
• A total volume of at least 1.1L
• A sufficiently level slope in the BrAC profile.
An Insufficient Sample warning will be printed if the subject does
not meet all of these requirements within three minutes.
If an operator obtains a test result indicating an insufficient sample, they may re-instruct the subject and
attempt a second test. In the event that a second insufficient test result is obtained, the operator should seek to
ascertain whether the cause of the insufficient sample was an intentional act of non-compliance or the result of a
medical or physical limitation. The breath volume and breath profile printed on the report along with the opera-
tor’s own observations can be used to assess the reasons for insufficiency. In many cases failure to provide a
sufficient sample may be considered a non-verbal refusal; however, pursuant to Elliott v State (S18A1204)
officers should consider re-reading the Implied Consent Notice and requesting a blood test if they wish to
introduce refusal evidence at trial.
2. Refusal - According to O.C.G.A. 40-5-67.1, a subject may refuse to submit to a chemical test of their breath.
Should the subject verbally refuse to provide a sample after the pre-test information has been entered, the operator
may select the refusal option from the instrument menu. This option will disappear once the subject starts blowing
into the instrument. If the subject does not verbally refuse, but fails to provide a sufficient sample within the three
minutes allotted for the test, an Insufficient Sample result will be produced. Under some circumstances, this may
be considered a refusal. Information regarding how the subject failed to provide a sample can be documented
in the additional comments section of the report; however, the operator should be mindful of the prohibition
against introducing breath test refusal evidence at trial. If a subject provides one valid breath sample, but fails to pro-
vide second, O.C.G.A. 40-6-392 provides that the single result can be used for accusation purposes.

33
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
3. Residual or Mouth Alcohol -
Residual or Mouth alcohol is a condition that occurs when the concentration of alcohol within the airspace
of the oral cavity, or mouth, exceeds the alcohol concentration of the breath. This condition can occur any-
time alcohol comes in contact with the mouth. Fortunately it is short lived and can be effectively eliminated by
employing several safeguards. These safeguards center around two approaches, mouth alcohol prevention and
mouth alcohol detection.

Mouth Alcohol Prevention (The 20 minute wait/ Deprivation Period)

The primary way an operator can prevent mouth alcohol from being present during a breath alcohol test
is by observing a 20 minute wait or deprivation period. This consists of depriving the subject of alco-
hol for at least 20 minutes immediately prior to the breath test. A 20 minute deprivation period should be
applied to all initial breath tests and cases where exposure to residual or mouth alcohol is suspected. In
order for the condition known as residual or mouth alcohol to be present, the subject must have oral ex-
posure to some source of alcohol within 10 to 15 minutes of the test. This exposure can either be from
some external source such as an alcohol containing beverage or an internal source such as alcohol con-
taining material regurgitated from the stomach into the oral cavity. Complete dissipation of mouth al-
cohol typically occurs within 10 to 15 minutes of exposure. Thus, if a subject is not exposed to some
source of alcohol within 20 minutes of the test, then mouth alcohol will have no significant effect on the
measured breath alcohol reading. This is the basis of the 20 minute deprivation period.
How should the 20 minute wait / deprivation period be administered?
It should be understood that depriving the subject of alcohol includes both preventing them from admin-
istering external sources of alcohol and monitoring them for obvious signs of internal exposure to alco-
hol arising from regurgitation into the oral cavity (i.e. vomiting). Ensuring that the 20 minute waiting
period has been properly met is the operator’s responsibility.
Practical ways to assure the subject is deprived of alcohol during the 20 minute wait are:
1. Do not allow the subject to put any foreign object in the mouth within 20 minutes of the test.
This means preventing them from eating, drinking, smoking, chewing, and taking medication by
mouth during the 20 minute Wait.
2. Reasonably ensure the mouth is free of any foreign object (gum, tobacco, food or drink), even
though it is highly unlikely they will affect the alcohol reading.
3. Monitor the subject for any overt signs of regurgitation, such as retching or vomiting. This
means that the subject should not be left unattended or unmonitored for any significant period of
time during the 20 minute wait.

Administering the 20 minute wait does not require that:

• The operator administer the entire 20 minute wait. It may be administered by other officers as
long as its administration is verified by the operator.
• The officer administering the 20 minute wait stare at the subject continuously for 20 minutes.
Staring at a subject is not necessary to determine if regurgitation has occurred.
• The officer restart the 20 minute wait if burping or belching occurs as long as regurgitation is
not suspected. Burping or belching prior to the test in the absence of regurgitation of alcohol from
the stomach will have no significant affect on the breath test results. If the operator suspects regurgi-
tation may have occurred as the result of a burp, they should verify this with the subject and restart
the 20 minute waiting period.
• The entire 20 minute wait/ deprivation period be administered at the station. The deprivation
period can begin when the subject is in the control of the officer and it can be verified that they are
continuously deprived of alcohol as described above. This may include the transport of the subject.
In summary, the 20 minute Wait can begin when the subject can be deprived of alcohol and be
continuously monitored for signs of regurgitation.

34
© GBI-DOFS 2021
What should be done if the subject vomits during the waiting period?
If regurgitation into the oral cavity or vomiting is suspected during the deprivation period, make a
note of it. When the subject has recovered sufficiently, allow them to rinse their mouth with water and
restart the twenty (20) minute waiting period. Allowing the subject to rinse their mouth after vomiting
is a courtesy that should be extended to the subject, but is not required for conducting of the breath test
should the subject refuse to do so.

Mouth Alcohol Detection (Range, Slope, and Agreement)

In the rare event that a subject is exposed to some significant source of alcohol within 20 minutes of the
test and this exposure goes undetected by the operator, the Intoxilyzer 9000 is designed to detect the
presence of mouth alcohol and return a warning message alerting the operator. The proper functioning of
the instrument’s mouth alcohol detection system is tested during every quarterly inspection. Mouth alco-
hol detection is accomplished by the evaluation of three characteristics of the breath sample.
1. Range. Acute exposure to high levels of alcohol in close proximity to the time of testing can result
in unusually high alcohol levels in the mouth. In order to prevent this alcohol from contributing to
the BrAC, the Intoxilyzer 9000 is designed to warn the operator when the measured BrAC exceeds
the range of alcohol levels reasonably found in living subjects. This is indicated by a Range Ex-
ceeded warning on the report.
2. Slope. As seen in Breath Sample 1, the breath alcohol Mouth Alcohol
profile typically associated with residual or mouth
alcohol is characterized by an initial rapid rise in al- Negative
cohol concentration or positive slope followed by a Positive slope
distinct drop from the peak measured breath alcohol
concentration or negative slope as the subject continues slope Invalid Sample*
to blow. Thus, the Intoxilyzer 9000 is designed to flag
any breath sample that exhibits a change from a positive
to a negative slope in the BrAC profile during a continu-
ous exhalation as an Invalid Sample.
Though this change in slope is present in the vast
majority of cases where significant levels of mouth alcohol exists, occasionally, the alcohol level
will not drop a sufficient amount to cause the instrument to flag it as Invalid. In the unlikely in-
stance that a breath sample containing significant mouth alcohol is not identified using the
range and slope criteria, a second sample will be requested and evaluated for agreement.
3. Agreement. As seen in the illustration on the following page, residual or mouth alcohol levels drop
very quickly. In fact, mouth alcohol will typically dissipate by more than 75% in the five minutes
between the two subject samples obtained during a breath test. This dissipation will almost always
cause the two consecutive sample readings to differ significantly and give a No 0.020 Agreement
warning. Thus, the risk of residual or mouth alcohol significantly affecting the Measured BrAC can
be effectively eliminated by obtaining two consecutive, replicate samples from the same subject four
or more minutes apart.

What if the breath profile shows a drop, does that mean there is mouth alcohol?

The BrAC profile is not intended to be used as a *BrAC drops at

tool to visually identify mouth alcohol. As seen beginning of 2nd
Multiple Attempts attempt. This
in Breath Sample 2 at right, not all drops in
alcohol level during a test are associated with Valid Sample* drop and then
mouth alcohol. A drop in the breath alcohol rise does not
profile typically occurs when a subject at- indicate mouth
tempts more than one exhalation during a alcohol and will
breath test. not be flagged as
an Invalid Sam-
(See page 43 for further discussion of this effect.) ple

35
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
Dissipation of Mouth Alcohol—Illustration*
*The illustration at right represents a con-
servative model of the dissipation rate of
mouth alcohol after exposure to alcohol at
concentrations between 21% and 25% based
on experiments conducted by GBI-DOFS
(2005-2012). As seen in this model, the
alcohol concentration declines by about
50% every 2 minutes or more than 75%
every 5 minutes. Note that while the major-
ity of subjects tested showed mouth alcohol
dissipation significantly faster than the mod-
el at left, mouth alcohol dissipation rates can
vary and in some instances can be slower
than shown in the illustration.

4. Interferents -
The Intoxilyzer 9000 is designed to uniquely identify and quantify ethanol in breath by analyzing the amount of
absorption that occurs at four specific wavelengths of infrared radiation. These wavelengths correspond to ab-
sorption of infrared light by ethanol’s carbon — oxygen and carbon — hydrogen bonds. Because of its unique
absorption pattern at the wavelengths analyzed, the Intoxilyzer 9000 is highly selective for ethanol. In lay-
man’s terms there is very little risk that substances other than ethanol will affect the measured BrAC. It
is possible however, that some substances present in the human breath can potentially interfere with the instru-
ment’s ability to analyze ethanol because they absorb infrared radiation at one or more of the same wavelengths
as ethanol, albeit in a different pattern. If this limitation occurs, the Intoxilyzer 9000 will not produce a printed
BrAC, but will abort the test and print an Interferent Detected warning on the breath test report.
What kind of substances could potentially be interferents?
In order to potentially interfere with the breath test a substance must meet three basic criteria:
• It must be present in the body in sufficient quantities to be detected by infrared analysis without being lethal.
• It must be volatile enough to partition into the breath in significant quantities.
• It must absorb infrared light at the same wavelengths as ethanol.
In reality, based on those criteria, there are no substances that are expected to occur in the breath of a normal
healthy individual that would interfere with a breath test. It is possible however, through abuse of volatile
chemicals or the occurrence of serious medical conditions such as diabetic ketosis, that a subject will have
enough interferent present in the breath to produce a warning message.

Notice ethanol’s unique pattern of absorption at the four wavelengths

analyzed by the I9000 represented by the red lines on the infrared
spectrum at left. Any breath sample that produces an analytical
response different than that of ethanol will be flagged as an Inter-
ferent.
Even similar alcohols such as methanol and isopropyl alcohol show dis-
tinctly different patterns of absorption than ethanol. This means they
will be flagged as Interferents by the I9000 in the unlikely event they
are present in significant quantities in a human breath sample.
In an evaluation of the specificity of the Intoxilyzer 9000 conducted by
GBI-DOFS, the pattern of absorption of ethanol in the 9 micron region
was found to be unique when compared to the published infrared re-
sponses for over 80 common volatile compounds. This ultimately
means that the measured BrAC reported by the Intoxilyzer 9000
will not be significantly affected by substances other than ethyl al-
cohol.

36
© GBI-DOFS 2021
E NVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
1. Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) - It has been long understood that a sufficiently strong source of certain
types of electromagnetic radiation could be used to induce a low level electrical current in metal objects such as
wires or antennas. This is, in fact, the basis for wireless communication mediums such as radio, TV, and cellular
phones. Unless amplified, normal electromagnetic signals in the ambient environment have little effect on most
modern day electrical devices. In order to ensure that the instrument’s electronics are not significantly affected by
wireless transmissions in the testing environment, the Intoxilyzer 9000 employs both RF shielding and RF detec-
tion.
• RF Shielding - As seen in the exhibit below, Intoxilyzer 9000’s optical bench is completely encased in a
metal box. This effectively shields it from ambient electromagnetic radiation and prevents radio fre-
quency signals from devices such as police radios, cell phones, wireless routers, or Bluetooth transmitters
from having any effect on electrical voltages produced by the detector.
• RF Detection - As a secondary safeguard, the Intoxilyzer 9000 is also equipped with a Radio Frequency
(RF) detection circuit. This circuit is designed to abort the test and alert the operator if the strength of
radio or wireless transmissions in the vicinity of the instrument exceeds a level set by the manufacturer.
Thus, in order to avoid test interruption due to RF detection, operators should avoid unnecessary radio and
wireless transmissions in the immediate vicinity of the instrument during the breath test.

RF Shielding RF Detection

Note that the Intoxilyzer 9000’s RF detection capability is verified during each quarterly inspection by utilizing
a transmission from a standard police radio in close proximity to the instrument. Whether a particular wireless
transmission will result in an RFI Detected warning is primarily a function of the radiated power of the trans-
mitting device and its proximity to the instrument. While internal testing of the Intoxilyzer 9000 by the Divi-
sion of Forensic Sciences has confirmed that wireless transmissions from various common sources will not in-
fluence the printed alcohol concentration, it is possible that transmissions from wireless devices such as cell
phones will result in an RFI Detect warning. Thus devices such as radios and cell phones should be turned
off or placed into a non-transmitting state when in close proximity to the instrument if possible. Body
cameras, Bluetooth devices, and Wi-Fi networks have little risk of affecting evidential breath tests and do not
typically need to be turned off. Should an operator obtain an RFI Detected warning, they should locate
the source and eliminate it.

2. Ambient Air - As previously discussed, during the Air Blank the Intoxilyzer 9000 uses air from the environment
around the instrument to purge the breath sample pathway and sample chamber. Provided this air is found to be
alcohol free, it is then used as a zero alcohol reference or baseline for the following test. This essentially means
that the reading produced by a subject sample or Dry Cal Chk is compared against the reading produced by the al-
cohol free reference to determine how much alcohol is present. Thus, if the ambient environment around the instru-
ment contains a significant amount of alcohol or other chemicals, the Intoxilyzer 9000 will not be able to set the
reference baseline at “true zero”. This is why the Intoxilyzer 9000 is designed to abort the test and warn the opera-
tor if environmental alcohol is detected. As seen in the following illustration, if the difference between the ambient
air reading and “expected zero” is larger than a predefined threshold, the Air Blank will return an Ambient Fail
Warning. In the unlikely event that alcohol exists in the instrument sample chamber at the conclusion of the Air
Blank in a concentration below the “Ambient Fail” threshold, the Intoxilyzer 9000 will set the zero reference level
at an alcohol concentration greater than zero. This effectively means that the following measurement will be lower
than the actual value by the amount of alcohol remaining in the instrument at the end of the Air Blank. This should
have minimal impact on subject test results, but as seen in the following example it may in some instances cause
the instrument’s dry gas calibration check to yield a value that is lower than the acceptable range.

37
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

Be aware that in some instances alcohol related odors from

a drinking subject in a confined space or in close proximity AIR BLANK - AMBIENT FAIL
to the breath hose may be sufficient to produce this effect,
resulting in an Ambient Fail or Calibration Check Out of
Tolerance warning. Failure to promptly remove the mouth-
piece after a breath sample may also result in these warnings.
Should an operator see an Ambient Fail Warning they
should attempt to ventilate the area around the instrument,
visually verify that the breath pathway is not obstructed
and attempt another test. If the Intoxilyzer 9000 is able to
successfully complete its air blank routine, then the ambient air
around the instrument should have no significant effect on the
subject’s breath test result. If the operator obtains a Dry Cal
Chk Out of Tolerance warning, they should attempt to eval-
uate whether the environmental conditions were a contrib-
uting factor.
Note: Agencies should be mindful not to use aerosol based dis-
infectants, alcohol based cleaners or hand sanitizer in close
proximity to the instrument as they have been shown to in-
crease the risk of environmental related warnings.

*The three figures given here represent illustrative aids only and are not intended to be exact represen-
tations of instrument functions.

3. Ambient Temperature - Though the sample chamber temperature and internal temperature of the instrument
are continuously monitored and regulated, it is important to only operate the Intoxilyzer 9000 within the recom-
mended operating temperature range. The manufacturer’s recommended operating range is from 0 degrees
Celsius to 40 degrees Celsius or 32 to 104 degrees Fahrenheit. However, because the Georgia Model Intoxilyz-
er 9000 utilizes an optional dry gas ethanol standard, it is advisable to avoid exposure of the instrument to ex-
cessively high or low temperatures for extended periods of time. While extremely high temperatures can result
in dangerous over pressurization of the gas tank, temperatures near freezing can cause temporary condensation
issues. Thus to minimize any temperature related issues, it is recommended that the ambient temperature of the
testing environment remain between approximately 60o F and 93o F . Ambient environmental temperature is
evaluated for conformance to this range during the quarterly inspection. Additionally, Intoxilyzers installed in
mobile testing environments or environments lacking climate control should be equipped with a thermometer
so that the operator can verify the environmental temperature before testing. Under these specific conditions,
best practice is to record the environmental temperature in the Additional Comments section of the Breath Test
Report.

38
© GBI-DOFS 2021
Instrument Condition
As stated earlier, all instruments should be operated with all of their parts attached and in good working order as
prescribed by the manufacturer. The Intoxilyzer 9000 has very few external parts that can be detached; however
there are numerous checks that verify the instrument’s proper operation.

Element Procedure Performed by Frequency Document

Instrument • ISO 17025 calibration • CMI • Initial purchase • ISO Calibration
Calibration (checks calibration at and as needed Certificate
(accuracy and multiple levels)
precision)
• Quarterly Inspection • Area • Once per calen- • Certificate of
(checks accuracy at 2 Supervisor dar quarter Inspection
levels and precision at 1)
• Calibration Check (Dry
Cal Chk checks accuracy • Instrument • After the first • Breath Test Re-
at 0.08 g/210L) subject sample port
• Instrument Diagnostics • Instrument
ITP (checks detector per-
• Before each sub- • Breath Test Re-
formance at a set level)
ject sample port

Interferent • CMI calibration proce- • CMI • Initial purchase • Calibration Cer-

Detection dure (checks acetone and as needed tificate
(selectivity or response)
specificity for
• Quarterly Inspection
ethanol) • Area • Once per calen- • Certificate of
(checks ethanol/
Supervisor dar quarter Inspection
methanol response)

Slope/ Mouth • Quarterly Inspection • Area • Once per calen- • Certificate of

Alcohol De- (checks mouth alcohol Supervisor dar quarter Inspection
tection response)
RFI Detection • CMI calibration proce- • CMI • Initial purchase • Calibration Cer-
dure (sets RF sensitivity) and as needed tificate
• Quarterly Inspection • Area
(checks RFI response) Supervisor • Once per calen- • Certificate of
dar quarter Inspection

Sample Pres- • CMI calibration proce- • CMI • Initial purchase • Calibration Cer-
sure/ Flow dure (calibrates flow and as needed tificate
Calibration sensor at 3 levels)
• Quarterly Inspection • Area • Once per calen- • Certificate of
(checks sample ac- Supervisor dar quarter Inspection
ceptance)
Temperature • CMI calibration proce- • CMI • Initial purchase • Calibration Cer-
Regulation dure (verifies tempera- and as needed tificate
tures)
• Quarterly Inspection • Area • Once per calen- • Certificate of
(checks environmental Supervisor dar quarter Inspection
conditions)
• Instrument Diagnostics
• Instrument • Before every • Breath Test Re-
(checks hose, internal,
sample port
and sample chamber
temp)

39
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
Summary of Limitation Safeguards
Issue Description Operator Safeguard Instrument Safeguard
Residual or Occurs when alcohol • Ensure the 20 minute wait is • Range: If the BrAC value signifi-
Mouth Alco- concentrations in the observed and the subject is cantly exceeds the lethal range it
hol mouth from recent ex- deprived of alcohol for 20 min will print a Range Exceeded
posure to ethanol ex- prior to the test. warning.
ceed the alcohol con-
centration in the breath. • Deprive the subject of alcohol • Slope: Monitors the BrAC profile
by ensuring the mouth is free of during exhalation and prints In-
foreign objects such as gum, valid Sample warning if slope
cigarette smoke, and significant requirement is not met.
amounts of tobacco or food.
• Agreement: Evaluates the
• Continuously monitor for any agreement between replicate
overt signs of regurgitation samples and gives 0.02 agree-
such a retching or vomiting. ment warning if not met.
Insufficient Occurs when the sub- • Properly instruct the subject • Flow: Ensures that the subject
Sample ject does not provide a to take a deep breath and blow blows with a certain force
breath sample that until told to stop.
meets the requirements • Volume: requires a volume of at
for flow, volume, and • Facilitate a maximum exhala- least 1.1L is delivered.
level slope. tion keeping the flow above the
minimum as long as possible. • Level Slope: Requires that the
BrAC is no longer significantly
• Assess medical or physical rising.
limitations to adequate breath
samples. • Insufficient Sample warning is
printed if the criteria are not met.
Instrument Operators must lay • Observe instrument for prop- • Diagnostic: Verifies electronics
Working foundation that the in- er operation. Verify question are working as expected or re-
Properly strument is in good sequence, display messages, turns a Diagnostic Fail warning.
working order as pre- and test routine are normal.
scribed by the manu- • Dry Cal Chk: Checks verifies the
facturer. • Verify the information on the instrument is producing accurate
Test Report such as the Diag- results or returns an Out of Tol-
nostics, Dry Cal Chk, Air erance warning.
Blanks, and Subject Samples
show expected results. • Quarterly Inspection: Verifies
instrument is in working order.
Ambient Occurs when the sam- • Ventilation: Ensure that the • Air Blanks: Purge the instrument
Alcohol / ple chamber can not be test environment is free of with ambient air and then verify
“Carryover” sufficiently purged of strong chemical odors. that it is alcohol free or return an
air containing alcohol Ambient Fail or Purge Fail
or various other volatile • Proximity: Minimize the time warning.
chemicals. the subject is in close proximity
to the instrument. • Dry Cal Chk: Low levels of ambi-
ent alcohol not flagged by the Air
• Procedure: Remove the mouth- Blank will produce an Out of Tol-
piece after every sample. erance warning if significant.
Radio Fre- Occurs when a suffi- • Refrain from using any radios • RF Shielding: Electromagneti-
quency In- ciently strong source of in the immediate vicinity of the cally shielded against RFI.
terference radio frequency is de- instrument during testing.
(RFI) tected by the instru- • RF Detection: An RFI antenna
ment’s RF detector. • Turn off all cell phones and and detection circuit will inhibit
wireless devices when con- the test in the presence of signifi-
ducting a breath test if possible. cant RF and produce RFI De-
tected warning.
Inter- Occurs when there is a • Assess the subject and if vola- • Interferent Detection: Com-
ferents / significant quantity of a tile abuse or diabetic ketoacido- pares responses at four IR de-
Volatile volatile organic chemi- sis (DKA) is suspected request tectors to differentiate ethanol
Chemicals cal in the subject’s a blood test and strongly con- from other compounds. Gives
breath that is producing sider medical evaluation. Interferent Detected warning if
a response at the in- other compounds are detected.
strument’s detector.
40
© GBI-DOFS 2021
Summary of Common Instrument Display Messages (Part 1)
Message Description Common Causes Recommended Actions
Invalid Sam- The instrument has • Residual or Mouth Alcohol • Administer a new 20 minute depri-
ple detected a rise followed vation period and then retest the
by a significant drop in subject.
the BrAC during a sin-
gle exhalation. • If this problem persists, request a
blood test.

Range Ex- The alcohol level in the • Residual or Mouth Alcohol • Administer a new 20 minute depri-
ceeded breath sample is too vation period and then retest the
high. subject.
• If this problem persists, request a
blood test.

No 0.020 The two samples pro- • Low or inconsistent breath • Administer a new 20 minute depri-
Agreement vided by the subject volumes vation period
differed by more than
0.020 g/210L. • Residual or Mouth Alcohol • Re-instruct the subject in how to pro-
vide a sufficient breath sample.
• Re-test the subject while attempting
to facilitate a maximum exhalation.
• If second No 0.020 Agreement
warning is obtained, a third
breath test can not be performed.
• Re-read Implied Consent and re-
quest a blood sample.

Insufficient The subject did not • Medical or physical limitation • Assess the breath profile to deter-
Sample provide a breath sam- in providing a sufficient sam- mine whether the subject followed
ple that meets the ple the instructions of the operator.
requirements for flow,
volume, and level • Intentional non-compliance • Ask the subject if they possess any
slope within 3 with the operator’s instruc- medical conditions that would pre-
minutes. tions. vent them from complying with the
operator’s instructions.
• Assess the stature of the subject.:
Subjects who are elderly and are
frail or of very small stature may
have more difficulty providing the
minimum required volume of air.
• Verify that the subject still desires to
voluntarily provide a breath sample.
• Re-instruct the subject and request
a second test.
• If a second Insufficient message
or a verbal refusal is obtained re-
read the Implied Consent Notice
and request a blood test.

Incompati- The software version • The software was busy at • Allow the instrument a few minutes
ble Software couldn’t be verified dur- the time the Diagnostic was to come ready and attempt another
Version ing the Instrument Di- performed. diagnostic.
agnostics.

41
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
Summary of Common Instrument Display Messages (Part 2)
Message Description Common Causes Recommended Actions
Diagnostic One of the instrument’s • The instrument did not suffi- • Allow the instrument to warm up for
Fail internal checks did not ciently warm up before run- an additional 5 to 10 minutes.
return the expected ning the self diagnostic
result. • If the problem occurs again after the
• RFI detected during diag- additional warm up time and the
nostic. cause can’t be identified, put an out
of service sign on the instrument
• Depending on the nature and contact your local area supervi-
and frequency, maintenance sor.
may be needed.
Calibration The result of the cali- • Environment - • Verify environmental conditions.
Check Out bration check or dry • Low level ambient
of Tolerance cal chk was outside alcohol. • Check tank pressure and installation
the expected range. and if necessary change tank. Force
• Improper ventilation the instrument to initiate another dry
during Air Blank. gas check from the tank installation
• Failure to remove screen and if it passes attempt an-
The acceptable range mouthpiece during
is +/- 0.005 g/210L of other test. (Note: The I9000 will re-
Air Blank. main locked until this is done)
the target value or
• Dry Gas Delivery -
0.075 to 0.085 for a • If a second consecutive warning is
target value of 0.08 • Improper tank instal-
lation or poor seal obtained, change tanks. If the same
g/210L warning is then obtained from a dif-
with the instrument.
• Tank pressure too ferent tank put an out of service sign
low. on the instrument and contact your
local area supervisor for instructions.
• Gas tank /standard
has degraded.
• Instrument is in need of
calibration or repair.
ITP Out of The ITP check portion • Instrument not completely • Allow the instrument a few minutes
Tolerance of the Self Diagnostic stabilized at time of diagnos- to stabilize and attempt another di-
did not return a result tic. agnostic
within the expected
range. • Source/Detector settling or • If the condition persists and can not
burn-in. be corrected, contact the area su-
pervisor for ITP adjust or further
evaluation.
Ambient The sample chamber • The area around the instru- • Check the area around the instru-
Fail / Purge can not be sufficient- ment contains some source ment for potential sources of volatile
Fail ly purged and was of alcohol or volatile chemi- environmental chemicals.
not found to be free cals such as cleaners.
of alcohol or other • Ventilate the area and retest the
volatile chemicals • The breath sample pathway subject.
after the Air Blank. is obstructed.
• If the conditions persists and can not
• Improper ventilation / mouth be corrected, put an out of service
piece not removed promptly sign on the instrument and contact
your local area supervisor.
• Alcohol based sanitizer was
used immediately prior to
test.
RFI Detect- A strong source of • Police radio transmission. • Locate the source of the RF, elim-
ed radio frequency was inate it and retest the subject.
detected by the in- • Intermittent transmissions
strument. from cell phones or wireless • Turn off all cell phones and wireless
transmitting devices. devices if possible.
Interferent A substance other • Volatile or inhalant abuse • Assess the subject, re-read im-
Detected than ethyl alcohol plied consent and request a blood
was detected in the • Metabolic or Diabetic ketosis test.
subject’s breath.
• Foreign object in the sub- • Take for Medical Evaluation
ject’s mouth

42
© GBI-DOFS 2021

Appendix A

Rules
of the
Georgia Bureau of Investigation

Chapter 92-3
Implied Consent

Rev. January 23, 2013

RULES OF THE GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

43
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
CHAPTER 92-3
IMPLIED CONSENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
92-3-.01 Information 92-3-.05 Form of Permit
92-3-.02 Qualifications 92-3-.06 Techniques and Methods. Amended
92-3-.03 Applications, Form of 92-3-.07 Fees and Billing
92-3-.04 Permits 92-3-.08 Revocation of Permit

92-3-.01 Application; Information.

(1) This chapter applies to chemical analysis of a person’s blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining whether
such person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs where such tests are required or authorized under the laws of this
state. It does not apply to analysis of breath, blood or other bodily substances for other purposes, including, but not lim-
ited to, those:
(a) Performed in conjunction with a postmortem examination;
(b) Conducted by personnel employed by the Division of Forensic Sciences or by personnel employed by an
agency of the United States;
(c) Performed pursuant to a court order;
(d) Performed as a condition of probation, parole or pretrial release;
(e) Performed for the purpose of determining paternity;
(f) For initial breath alcohol screening;(except where explicitly addressed)
(g) For the purpose of preliminary testing for alcohol or drugs by law enforcement before submission of samples
to a laboratory for confirmatory testing;
(h) For DNA analysis; or
(i) For the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.

(2) Requests concerning the rules or laws administered by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Division of Forensic Sci-
ences relative to the methods approved for breath, blood or urine analysis, pursuant to this Chapter, shall be made in
writing to the Director,Division of Forensic Sciences of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

Authority O.C.G.A. Secs. 6-2-5.1, 27-3-7, 35-3-154, 40-6-392, 52-7-12. History. Original Rule entitled “Information” adopted. F. Apr. 11, 1986; eff. May 1, 1986. Amended:
F. Aug. 31, 1998; eff. Sept. 20, 1998. Amended: Rule retitled “Application; Information”. F. Feb. 24, 2000; eff. Mar. 15, 2000. Amended: F. Mar. 26, 2010; eff. Apr. 15,
2010.

92-3-.02 Qualifications. Amended.

(1) Pursuant to this chapter applicants for a permit to perform chemical analysis of a
person’s blood for alcohol content and report the results of such analysis as delineated in
O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392 shall meet the following requirements:
(a) Be employed by an entity that is accredited in the area of forensic blood alcohol analysis by a nationally rec-
ognized accrediting body;
(b) Have never been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(c) Have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree in chemistry, toxicology, medicine, pharmacology, or
forensic science, including a minimum of 40 semester hours of chemistry related coursework;
(d) Have completed a documented training program in the area of blood alcohol analysis that includes the follow-
ing elements:
1. Theory of alcohol pharmacology and pharmacokinetics;
2. Principles and theory of analytical techniques for blood alcohol analysis, e.g., head space gas chro-
matography and/or enzymatic methods;
3. Analysis of samples with known blood alcohol content using gas chromatography, enzymatic meth-
ods, or other generally accepted techniques;
4. Successful completion of proficiency test samples from the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and/or proficiency test samples from a test provider approved by the entity’s
accrediting authority described in 92-3.02(1)(a).
(e) Be an active participant in an ongoing external proficiency testing program.

(2) Applicants for a permit to perform chemical analysis of a person’s breath pursuant to this Chapter shall meet the fol-
lowing requirements:
(a) be a citizen of the United States;
(b) be a resident of the State of Georgia or be employed within the State of Georgia;
(c) have never been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;

44
© GBI-DOFS 2021
(d) be over twenty years of age;
(e) certified satisfactory completion of a course in breath analysis conducted under the auspices of the Division
of Forensic Sciences.

(3) All peace officers qualified to make arrests on the highways or streets of this State shall be deemed, and are hereby
declared, qualified to administer the screening test for alcohol in the breath. Screening tests are not intended to be a
quantitative measure of the specific amount of alcohol in a person’s breath, but a presumptive test for the presence or
absence of alcohol. A list of approved breath alcohol screening devices will be maintained by the Division of Forensic
Sciences.

(4) Pursuant to this chapter, applicants for a permit to perform chemical analysis of a
person’s blood or urine for drugs and report the results of such analysis as delineated in
O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392 shall meet the following requirements:
(a) Be employed by an entity that is accredited in the area of toxicology analysis by a nationally recognized ac-
crediting body;
(b) Have never been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(c) Have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree in chemistry, toxicology, medicine, pharmacology, or
forensic science, including a minimum of 40 semester hours of chemistry related coursework;
(d) Have completed a training program in the area of drug analysis from biological samples that includes the fol-
lowing elements:
1. Theory of drug pharmacology and pharmacokinetics;
2. Principles and theory of analytical techniques for drug analysis, including presumptive (e.g., immuno-
assay) and confirmatory techniques (e.g., gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry, liquid chromatog-
raphy/ mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry);
3. Analysis of samples with known drug content using presumptive and confirmatory methods,
4. Successful completion of proficiency test samples from a test provider approved by the accrediting
authority described in 92-3.02(4)(a). .
(e) Be an active participant in an ongoing external proficiency testing program.

(5) Applicants to perform, under supervision, chemical testing of a person’s blood or urine for alcohol shall meet the fol-
lowing requirements:
(a) Be under the direct supervision of a person who possesses a valid permit to perform chemical tests as de-
scribed in 92-3.02(1) and who is responsible for reviewing and reporting the results of all chemical tests per-
formed by the applicant;
(b) Be a duly licensed registered nurse, certified medical technologist, or trained laboratory technician;
(c) Have completed a training program in the area of blood alcohol analysis that includes the following elements:
1. Principles and theory of analytical techniques for blood alcohol analysis, e.g., head space gas chro-
matography and/or enzymatic methods;
2. Analysis of samples with known blood alcohol content using gas chromatography, enzymatic meth-
ods, or other generally accepted techniques;
3. Successful completion of proficiency test samples provided by the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration (NHTSA) and/or proficiency test samples from a test provider approved by the
entity’s accrediting authority described in 92-3.02(1)(a).
(d) Be an active participant in an ongoing external proficiency testing program.

(6) Applicants to perform, under supervision, chemical testing of a person’s blood or urine for drugs shall meet the follow-
ing requirements:
(a) Be under the direct supervision of a person who possesses a valid permit to perform chemical tests as de-
scribed in 92-3.02(4) and who is responsible for reviewing and reporting the results of all chemical tests per-
formed by the applicant;
(b) Be a duly licensed registered nurse, certified medical technologist, or trained laboratory technician;
(c) Have completed a training program in the area of drug analysis from biological samples that includes the fol-
lowing elements:
1. Principles and theory of analytical techniques for drug analysis, including
presumptive (e.g., immunoassay) and confirmatory techniques (e.g., gas chromatography/ mass spec-
trometry, liquid chromatography/ mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry);
2. Analysis of samples with known drug content using presumptive and confirmatory methods;
3. Successful completion of proficiency test samples provided by a recognized test provider approved by
the entity’s accrediting authority described in 92-3.02(4)(a). .
(d) Be an active participant in ongoing external proficiency testing program.

Authority O.C.G.A. Secs. 6-2-5.1, 27-3-7, 35-3-154, 40-6-392, 52-7-12. History. Original Rule entitled “Qualifications” adopted. F. Apr. 11, 1986; eff. May 1, 1986. Amend-
ed: F. Aug. 9, 1988; eff. Aug. 29, 1988. Amended: F. Nov. 18, 1995; eff. Dec. 8, 1995. Amended: F. Feb. 24, 2000; eff. Mar. 15, 2000. Amended: F. Mar. 26, 2010; eff.
Apr. 15, 2010.

45
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
92-3-.03 Application, Form of. Amended.

(1) Applications for permits to perform chemical analyses of a person’s blood or breath
pursuant to this Chapter shall be on a form prescribed and approved by the Georgia
Bureau of Investigation and shall be submitted to the Division of Forensic Sciences,
Implied Consent Section.

(2) Each applicant shall provide as a minimum the following data:

(a) the name of the individual seeking the permit;
(b) the email address, telephone number, fax number and mailing address of the individual seeking the permit;
(c) the name and mailing address of the applicant’s employer, or if self-employed, the
name and mailing address under and by which the applicant transacts business;
(d) place and date of the applicant’s birth;
(e) the resident address of the applicant;
(f) responses to all questions or requests for information in the application;
(g) date of the application.
(3) Where the application is for a permit to perform chemical analyses of a person’s blood or urine, the applicant
shall provide the documentation necessary to demonstrate that the applicant has met all applicable qualifica-
tions.
(4) Where the application is for a permit to perform chemical analyses of a person’s blood or urine the applicant
shall identify the specific methods and techniques to be employed in the performance of the analyses.
Authority O.C.G.A. Secs. 6-2-5.1, 27-3-7, 35-3-154, 40-6-392, 52-7-12. History. Original Rule entitled “Application, Form of” adopted. F. Apr. 11, 1986; eff. May 1, 1986.
Amended: F. June 10, 1987; eff. June 30, 1987. Amended: F. Nov. 18, 1995; eff. Dec. 8, 1995. Amended: F. Feb. 24, 2000; eff. Mar. 15, 2000. Amended: F. Mar. 26,
2010; eff. Apr. 15, 2010.

92-3-.04 Permits. Amended

(1) Permits to perform chemical analyses of a person’s blood, urine, or breath pursuant to this Chapter will be issued by
the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Division of Forensic Sciences, Implied Consent Section.

(2) The Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Division of Forensic Sciences shall withhold the issuance of a permit where the
application reveals information that the applicant has not or cannot qualify pursuant to Rule 92-3-.02.

(3) Separate and distinct permits shall be issued for:

(a) analysis and reporting of blood alcohol levels
(b) testing and reporting breath alcohol levels;
(c) analysis and reporting of drugs in blood and/or urine
(d) analysis of blood alcohol under supervision
(e) analysis of drugs in blood and/or urine under supervision.

(4) All permits are subject to revocation as provided by law and Rule 92-3-.08.

(5) Applications for all permits shall be filed with the Division of Forensic Sciences Implied Consent Section. Permits
shall be valid for not more than four years from the date of issuance. Proof of successful completion of annual profi-
ciency tests shall be required to maintain all permits for testing blood or urine for alcohol or drugs.

(6) Permit renewals to perform chemical analyses on a person’s breath shall not be approved unless one refresher
course in breath alcohol analysis conducted under the auspices of the Division of Forensic Sciences has been satis-
factorily completed. Individuals possessing permits that are more than one year past the expiration date will not be
allowed to renew their permits by attending a refresher course unless specifically authorized by the Director of the
Division of Forensic Sciences or his or her designee. Additional refresher courses may be required at the discretion
of the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences.

(7) Existing permit holders may obtain a permit to operate instruments approved pursuant to this rule by the Division of
Forensic Sciences for the chemical analysis of a person’s breath by successfully completing a transition course in
breath alcohol analysis under the auspices of the Division of Forensic Sciences.

Authority O.C.G.A. Secs. 6-2-5.1, 27-3-7, 35-3-154, 40-6-392, 52-7-12. History. Original Rule entitled “Permits” adopted. F. Apr. 11, 1986; eff. May 1, 1986. Amended: F.
Nov. 18, 1995; eff. Dec. 8, 1995. Amended: F. Feb. 24, 2000; eff. Mar. 15, 2000. Amended: F. Mar. 26, 2010; eff. Apr. 15, 2010. Amended: F. Jan. 3, 2013; eff. Jan. 23,
2013.

92-3-.05 Form of Permit

Permits issued by the Division of Forensic Sciences authorizing individuals to perform chemical analyses of a person’s
blood, urine, or breath pursuant to this Chapter shall be in a form approved by the Division of Forensic Sciences. Permits
will indicate the individual approved to perform analysis, an issue and expiration date, and the type of analysis approved
to perform, i.e., breath alcohol, blood alcohol, or blood and urine drug testing. In addition the permit will clearly indicate
whether testing must be performed under supervision. In the case of breath analysis the type of instrument approved for
46
© GBI-DOFS 2021
use will also be indicated.
(a) Form deleted.
(b) Form deleted.
(c) Form deleted.
Authority O.C.G.A. Secs. 6-2-5.1, 27-3-7, 35-3-154, 40-6-392, 52-7-12. History. Original Rule entitled “Forms of Permit” adopted. F. Apr. 11, 1986; eff. May 1, 1986.
Amended: F. Feb. 24, 2000; eff. Mar. 15, 2000. Amended: F. Mar. 26, 2010; eff. Apr. 15, 2010.

92-3-.06 Techniques and Methods. Amended.

(1) Reserved

(2) All chemical tests on blood and/or urine not performed by Georgia Bureau of Investigation personnel must be per-
formed on instruments approved by the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences. Requests for approval of instru-
ments to perform chemical testing of blood and urine along with proposed maintenance guidelines will be submitted to
the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences or his or her designee. Approval of such request is at his or her discre-
tion pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392. Upon approval of any testing instrument for the analysis of blood and/or urine a
certificate of approval shall be issued detailing the agency, the date approved, the instrument serial number, and the
date of the approval expiration. Such certificate shall be self authenticating and evidence that the instrument was ap-
proved by the Division of Forensic Sciences as required by O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392. Such approval shall not apply
when any substantial modification to the instrument’s original design has been made such that it no longer has all its
parts attached and in working order as prescribed by the manufacturer or when the instrument is not in substantial com-
pliance with the maintenance guidelines submitted. Failure to maintain testing instruments as stated in the
guidelines for instrument maintenance may be considered grounds for revocation of the certificate of approval. Factors
evaluated in the approval of maintenance guidelines for testing instruments shall include but are not limited to:
(a) Documentation of substantial compliance with the manufacturer’s recommendations for maintenance;
(b) Documentation of all maintenance performed including the date, action taken, the individual performing the
maintenance, and the results of the maintenance including acceptable performance of known quality control
samples following such maintenance;
(c) Documentation that instrument maintenance is performed by individuals sufficiently trained to perform instru-
ment maintenance;
(d) Documentation that the instrument has all its parts attached and in good working order as prescribed by the
manufacturer;
(e) Documentation that the instrument is suitable for the purpose for which it is being used;
(f) Documentation of quality control measures to ensure reliable analysis such as positive and negative controls;
(g) Documentation that the instrument exhibits the sensitivity, resolution, and specificity necessary for its intend-
ed purpose and is evaluated for suitability prior to use.

(3) Types of instruments considered for confirmatory testing of blood or urine for drug content include gas chromatog-
raphy mass spectrometry, gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography mass spectrometry,
liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, or other comparable structural elucidation technique as
determined by the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences or his or her designee.

(4) Types of instruments considered for testing of blood for alcohol content include head space gas chromatograph, flu-
orescence polarization immunoassay, cloned enzyme donor immunoassay, enzyme immunoassay, or other compa-
rable technique as determined by the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences or his or her designee.

(5) Breath tests other than the original alcohol-screening test shall be conducted on a breath alcohol analyzer approved
by the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences or his or her designee. Any other type of breath alcohol analyzer
not specifically listed in this paragraph must be approved by the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences or de-
signee prior to its use in the State.
(a) The Intoxilyzer Model 5000 manufactured by CMI, Inc. is an approved instrument for breath alcohol tests
conducted on or before December 31, 2015;
(b) The Intoxilyzer Model 9000 manufactured by CMI, Inc. is an approved instrument for breath alcohol tests
conducted on or after January 1, 2013;

(6) All breath tests other than the original alcohol-screening test will be performed in accordance with Rule 92-3-.02(2)
of these regulations. The operator’s permit will be conspicuously displayed in the room and in the immediate vicinity
of the place where the test is conducted, or the operator will have on his or her person or immediate possession for
display upon request a valid permit in accordance with Rule 92-3-.02(2).

(7) All blood and urine drug tests will be performed by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Division of Forensic Sciences
or by entities specifically approved by the Director of the Division of Sciences for this purpose. All entities approved by
the Division of Forensic Sciences to perform chemical analyses of blood and urine for drugs shall be accredited by a na-
tionally recognized accrediting body. A list of all entities approved for the purpose of conducting chemical tests for drugs

47
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
will be kept on file at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to be made available upon request. Approval of entities
to perform chemical tests of blood or urine for drugs shall be at the discretion of the Director of the Division of Forensic
Sciences or his or her designee. Such approval shall not apply when any substantial change to the method submitted
has been made or when any person executing such method fails to substantially comply with the method as written
when submitted for approval. Entities requesting approval to perform chemical tests of blood and/or urine for drugs must
submit all methods used for chemical testing under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392 as well as accompanying calibration proce-
dures and validation documents. All blood and urine drug testing methods submitted to the Division of Forensic Sciences
for approval shall be evaluated for the following:
(a) Whether the method is suitable for the purpose for which it was submitted;
(b) Whether the method employs a minimum of two analytical techniques for positive identification of an analyte
where at least one of the techniques is structurally elucidating (e.g., gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry,
liquid chromatography/ mass spectrometry or liquid chromatography/ mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry);
(c) Whether the method includes quality control measures to ensure reliable analysis such as positive and nega-
tive controls;
(d) Whether the method’s accuracy and measurement uncertainty for quantification meet acceptance criteria as
determined by the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences or his or her designee. These acceptance crite-
ria are based on minimum acceptability requirements set forth for the Division of Forensic Sciences and will be
made available to the applicant agency on request;
(e) Whether the method’s working range for quantification includes the relevant pharmacological concentrations
for the analytes of interest;
(f) Whether the method is specific for the analytes of interest;
(g) Whether the method complies with a nationally recognized quality control standard such as ISO/IEC 17025.

(8) The Director, Division of Forensic Sciences:

(a) will cause each instrument used in the administration of breath tests to be checked periodically for calibration
and operation and a record of the results of all such checks maintained;
(b) at his discretion may cause any operator administering breath tests to be checked for operating proficiency.
Unsatisfactory operation proficiency checks shall be one of several criteria for permit revocation.

(9) All blood and/or urine alcohol tests will be performed in accordance with a quantitative Gas Chromatographic tech-
nique or any equivalent procedure comparable in accuracy to Gas Chromatography. Any method used by an entity other
than the Division of Forensic Sciences will be evaluated for approval by the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences
or his or her designee and such approval shall be at his or her discretion. Upon approval of any testing method a certifi-
cate of approval shall be issued detailing the agency, the date approved, and the date of the approval expiration. Such
certificate shall be self authenticating and evidence that the method submitted was approved by the Division of Forensic
Sciences as required by law. Such approval shall not apply when any substantial change to the method submitted has
been made or when any person executing such method fails to substantially comply with the method as
written when submitted for approval. Entities requesting approval to perform blood and/or urine alcohol tests must submit
all methods used for testing under O.C.G.A. § 40- 6-392 as well as accompanying calibration procedures and validation
documents. Factors evaluated in the approval of testing methods by outside agencies shall include:
(a) Whether the method is generally accepted in the scientific community for the purpose for which it is being
submitted;
(b) Whether the method employs replicate analysis;
(c) Whether the method includes quality control measures to ensure reliable analysis such as positive and nega-
tive controls;
(d) Whether the method’s accuracy and measurement uncertainty for quantification meet acceptance criteria as
determined by the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences or his or her designee. These acceptance crite-
ria are based on minimum acceptability requirements set forth for the Division of Forensic Sciences and will be
made available to the applicant agency on request;
(e) Whether the method’s working range for quantification includes all alcohol levels between 0.02 and 0.40 g/dL
of blood or equivalent;
(f) Whether the method is specific for ethanol;
(g) Whether the method complies with a nationally recognized quality control standard such as ISO/IEC 17025.

(10) The Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences, at his discretion, may require any person authorized to perform
chemical tests and/or report results of such testing of blood or urine to divide a specimen and after analysis submit it to
the Director, with his report of the specimen. Alternatively, the Director may submit a sample of known alcohol or drug
content to any person holding a permit to analyze blood or urine or require them to participate in an external proficiency
testing program of his or her choice at his or her discretion. The failure to submit a sample or to satisfactorily analyze a
specimen on request will be one of several criteria for revocation of a permit.

(11) Except as forbidden by law, a report of every evidential breath test, excluding initial alcohol-screening tests, shall be
made by the individual authorized to issue such reports.

(12)(a) The methods approved by the Division of Forensic Sciences for conducting an evidential breath alcohol analysis

48
© GBI-DOFS 2021
shall consist of the following:
(1) the analysis shall be conducted on an approved instrument as defined in 92-3-.06 (5).
(2) the analysis shall be performed by an individual holding a valid permit, in accordance with Rule 92-3-.02 (2);
and
(3) the testing instrument shall have been checked periodically for calibration and operation, in accordance with
Rule 92-3-.06 (8)(a);

(b) Administrative, procedural, and/or clerical steps performed in conducting a test shall not constitute a part of the ap-
proved method of analysis.

Authority O.C.G.A. Secs. 6-2-5.1, 27-3-7, 35-3-154, 40-6-392, 52-7-12. History. Original Rule entitled “Techniques and Methods” adopted. F. Apr. 11, 1986; eff. May 1,
1986. Amended: F. Sept. 19, 1994; eff. Oct. 9, 1994. Amended: F. Nov. 9, 1994; eff. Nov. 29, 1994. Amended: F. Nov. 18, 1995; eff. Dec. 8, 1995. Amended: F. Nov. 12,
1997; eff. Dec. 2, 1997. Amended: F. Feb. 24, 2000; eff. Mar. 15, 2000. Amended: F. Mar. 26, 2010; eff. Apr. 15, 2010. Amended: F. Jan. 3, 2013; eff. Jan. 23, 2013.

92-3-.07 Fees and Billing. Amended.

The fee charged for the withdrawal of a person’s blood pursuant to the O.C.G.A. 40-5-55 and 40-6-392 shall not exceed
the reasonable and customary charges for such service in the local medical community. All statements for such services
shall be submitted to and paid by the jurisdiction (municipal corporation or political subdivision) in which the arrest or ac-
cident giving rise to such a procedure occurred.

Authority O.C.G.A. Sec. 40-6-392, 27-3-7, 52-7-12, 6-2-5.1, 35-3-154(1). History. Original Rule entitled “Fees and Billing” was filed on April 11, 1986; effective May 1, 1986.
Amended: F. May 27, 1993; eff. Jun. 16, 1993. Amended; F. February 24,2000; eff. March 15,2000.

92-3-.08 Revocation of Permit.

(1) The violation of any of the rules and regulations of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation promulgated under the provi-
sions of the Uniform Rules of the Road by a permit holder shall constitute ground upon which the Director of the Divi-
sion of Forensic Sciences may revoke such permit.

(2) If the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences receives a complaint or has reason to believe that a permit holder
is violating any provision of the rules and regulations, he shall notify such permit holder that a hearing will be held at
a place and time designated by the Director to determine if the alleged infraction has occurred.

(3) The hearing shall be conducted by the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences or by someone he shall desig-
nate.

(4) Upon revocation of a permit, the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences or designee shall notify the permit
holder, the permit holder’s immediate supervisor and the Court(s) of the county or city where the permit holder is
employed and in which the results of any tests performed by the permit holder could have been introduced as evi-
dence.
Authority O.C.G.A. Secs. 6-2-5.1, 27-3-7, 35-3-154, 40-6-392, 52-7-12. History. Original Rule entitled “Revocation of Permit” adopted. F. Apr. 11, 1986; eff. May 1, 1986.
Amended: F. Mar. 26, 2010; eff. Apr. 15, 2010.

49
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
TABLE 1
Guide to Estimating Approximate Body Alcohol Concentration

Average Male Physiology – 17% Body Fat (Vd = 0.7L/kg)

No.of standard drinks (0.6 oz ethanol: 5%-12 oz beers, 12%-5 oz wine)
Weight (lb) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
100 0.044 0.088 0.132 0.176 0.220 0.264 0.308 0.352 0.396 0.441 0.485 0.529
110 0.040 0.080 0.120 0.160 0.200 0.240 0.280 0.320 0.360 0.400 0.441 0.481
120 0.037 0.073 0.110 0.147 0.184 0.220 0.257 0.294 0.330 0.367 0.404 0.441
130 0.034 0.068 0.102 0.136 0.169 0.203 0.237 0.271 0.305 0.339 0.373 0.407
140 0.031 0.063 0.094 0.126 0.157 0.189 0.220 0.252 0.283 0.315 0.346 0.378
150 0.029 0.059 0.088 0.117 0.147 0.176 0.206 0.235 0.264 0.294 0.323 0.352
160 0.028 0.055 0.083 0.110 0.138 0.165 0.193 0.220 0.248 0.275 0.303 0.330
170 0.026 0.052 0.078 0.104 0.130 0.155 0.181 0.207 0.233 0.259 0.285 0.311
180 0.024 0.049 0.073 0.098 0.122 0.147 0.171 0.196 0.220 0.245 0.269 0.294
190 0.023 0.046 0.070 0.093 0.116 0.139 0.162 0.185 0.209 0.232 0.255 0.278
200 0.022 0.044 0.066 0.088 0.110 0.132 0.154 0.176 0.198 0.220 0.242 0.264
210 0.021 0.042 0.063 0.084 0.105 0.126 0.147 0.168 0.189 0.210 0.231 0.252
220 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180 0.200 0.220 0.240
230 0.019 0.038 0.057 0.077 0.096 0.115 0.134 0.153 0.172 0.192 0.211 0.230
250 0.018 0.035 0.053 0.070 0.088 0.106 0.123 0.141 0.159 0.176 0.194 0.211
270 0.016 0.033 0.049 0.065 0.082 0.098 0.114 0.131 0.147 0.163 0.179 0.196
290 0.015 0.030 0.046 0.061 0.076 0.091 0.106 0.122 0.137 0.152 0.167 0.182

Average Female Physiology – 29% Body Fat (Vd = 0.6 L/kg)

No.of standard drinks (0.6 oz ethanol: 5%-12 oz beers, 12%-5 oz wine)
Weight (lb) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
100 0.051 0.103 0.154 0.206 0.257 0.308 0.360 0.411 0.463 0.514 0.565 0.617
110 0.047 0.093 0.140 0.187 0.234 0.280 0.327 0.374 0.421 0.467 0.514 0.561
120 0.043 0.086 0.128 0.171 0.214 0.257 0.300 0.343 0.385 0.428 0.471 0.514
130 0.040 0.079 0.119 0.158 0.198 0.237 0.277 0.316 0.356 0.395 0.435 0.474
140 0.037 0.073 0.110 0.147 0.184 0.220 0.257 0.294 0.330 0.367 0.404 0.441
150 0.034 0.069 0.103 0.137 0.171 0.206 0.240 0.274 0.308 0.343 0.377 0.411
160 0.032 0.064 0.096 0.128 0.161 0.193 0.225 0.257 0.289 0.321 0.353 0.385
170 0.030 0.060 0.091 0.121 0.151 0.181 0.212 0.242 0.272 0.302 0.333 0.363
180 0.029 0.057 0.086 0.114 0.143 0.171 0.200 0.228 0.257 0.286 0.314 0.343
190 0.027 0.054 0.081 0.108 0.135 0.162 0.189 0.216 0.243 0.271 0.298 0.325
200 0.026 0.051 0.077 0.103 0.128 0.154 0.180 0.206 0.231 0.257 0.283 0.308
210 0.024 0.049 0.073 0.098 0.122 0.147 0.171 0.196 0.220 0.245 0.269 0.294
220 0.023 0.047 0.070 0.093 0.117 0.140 0.164 0.187 0.210 0.234 0.257 0.280
230 0.022 0.045 0.067 0.089 0.112 0.134 0.156 0.179 0.201 0.223 0.246 0.268
250 0.021 0.041 0.062 0.082 0.103 0.123 0.144 0.164 0.185 0.206 0.226 0.247
270 0.019 0.038 0.057 0.076 0.095 0.114 0.133 0.152 0.171 0.190 0.209 0.228
290 0.018 0.035 0.053 0.071 0.089 0.106 0.124 0.142 0.160 0.177 0.195 0.213

50
© GBI-DOFS 2021

USEFUL LINKS AND DOCUMENTS

Below is a list of documents and links that may be useful to the Intoxilyzer 9000 operator.
Training and Contact information can be found at the site below:
http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/implied-consent-0
Breath Alcohol Testing Basic Class Information
Information about obtaining a permit to conduct breath tests and registration for the Intoxilyzer 9000 Basic Class.
Breath Alcohol Testing Refresher Class Information
Here you will find information on how to renew your breath testing permit.
Contact Information
Here you will find important contact information for the Implied Consent section, Area Supervisors, and CMI.

Information on GBI-DOFS Procedures can be found at the link Below:

http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/dofs-quality-documents
Follow the link above and then choose the following folders Official Manual / Operations / Implied
OPSIC 05— Equipment Inspections:
Here you will find a list of approved dry gas ethanol standard vendors.
OPSIC 06— Alcohol Screening Devices:
Here you will find a list of PBTs approved by the GBI-DOFS (This can also be found on the FAQ page below.)
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions can be found at the link Below:
http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/implied-consent-faqs
Current copies of our manuals along with other useful information such as how to obtain Implied Consent cards
and how to obtain a reprint of your operator’s permit can be found at the link above.
Information on Other GBI-DOFS Documents can be found at the link Below:
Operations Bulletins
http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/operations-bulletins
These are important announcements from the Deputy Director of DOFS regarding operational issues at DOFS.
Downloads
http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/downloads
This site contains miscellaneous documents such as the original I9000 purchasing contract, various Intoxilyzer tran-
sition updates, DOFS Evidence Submission forms, and ordering information for Blood Alcohol Testing kits.
Information from the Department of Drivers Services can be found at the link Below:
Traffic Court Reference Manual 2015:
https://dds.georgia.gov/sites/dds.georgia.gov/files/related_files/document/TCRM_2015.pdf
Law Enforcement Guide to DDS forms: http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/implied-consent-faqs
Information from the Prosecuting Attorney’s Council can be found at the link Below:
Case Law Update: http://www.pacga.org/site/content/40
Law Enforcement Guide to Open Records: http://www.pacga.org/site/content/315

51
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

A LCOHOL SCREENING DEVICES

The Division of Forensic Sciences approves alcohol screening devices for use as investigative tools by law enforce-
ment personnel. The term alcohol screening device refers to instruments or devices for the qualitative determi-
nation of the presence or absence of alcohol in the breath. Alcohol screening devices as approved by the Division
of Forensic Sciences are not intended for the determination of the specific quantity of ethanol in a person’s breath
and are not considered approved for “evidential breath alcohol analysis” as defined by the Rules of the Georgia
Bureau of Investigation unless otherwise specified. An official list of currently approved alcohol screening instru-
ments will be maintained by the Implied Consent Manager and can be found the official procedure OPSIC 06.
Alcohol screening devices approved for use as of October of 2021 are as follows:

Manufacturer PBT Model Date Approved Date Re-

moved from
Service
Intoximeter Alcolyzer Approved prior to 2004 Active
Alco-sensor and Alco- Approved prior to 2004 Active
sensor II
Alcosensor III and RBT Approved prior to 2004 Active
Alcosensor IV Approved prior to 2004 Active
Alcosensor V XL 3/14/2013 Active
Alcosensor FST 7/1/2004 Active
Alcohol Conter- A.L.E.R.T. Approved prior to 2004 Active
measure System
Inc
CMI, Inc SD-2 and SD-5 Approved prior to 2004 Active
Model 300 and 400 Approved prior to 2004 Active
Intoxilyzer 500 6/1/2016 Active
Intoxilyzer 800 11/1/2018 Active
Lifeloc Technol- FC10 Approved prior to 2004 Active
ogies
FC10Plus and FC20 12/1/2008 Active
Draeger Safety Alcotest 6510 6/1/2006 Active
Inc
Alcotest 6810 5/1/2008 Active
Alcotest 5510 3/1/2014 Active
Alcotest 6820 3/1/2016 Active
Alcotest 5820 11/1/2018 Active
PAS Systems Mark V Alcovisor 6/1/2013 Active

52
© GBI-DOFS 2021

53
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
Appendix

Recent Court Decisions Affecting DUI/ Implied Consent Law

Miranda and Implied Consent

S19A0157; Turnquist v. State

Today we hold that neither the Georgia right against compelled self-incrimination, the Georgia right to due pro-
cess, nor a Georgia statute prohibiting compelled self-incrimination requires law enforcement to provide
[Miranda] warnings to persons arrested for DUI before asking them to submit to a breath test... Accordingly, we
overrule Price and other Georgia appellate decisions to the extent that they hold that either OCGA § 24-5-506 (a) or the
Georgia Constitution requires law enforcement to warn suspects in custody of their right to refuse to perform an incrimi-
nating act. Also See 236 Ga. App. 868; State v. Lord & State v. Rosier and243 Ga. App. 232; State V. Coe, 237 Ga.
App. 764; The State v. Moses; 237 Ga. App. 362; Scanlon v. State

245 Ga. App. 466; Arce v. State

The court held “The officer did not have to administer Miranda warning to defendant before administering the
field sobriety tests during a routine roadside questioning, because defendant was not under formal arrest but exhib-
ited many physical manifestations of intoxication amounting to probable cause to arrest.”

269 Ga. 222 (Supreme Court); Price v. State

The test of “in custody” is whether “a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have thought the de-
tention would not be temporary”.

Intoxilyzer and Refusals

237 Ga. App. 236; Komala v. State

Unless encumbered by a physical or medical limitation, a person submitting to the breathalyzer test may be consid-
ered to have refused to comply if an adequate breath sample has not been provided. “…the arresting officer testi-
fied unequivocally that (Komala) failed… to provide an adequate breath sample and that the instrument did not produce
a printed alcohol concentration analysis, which was objective evidence of (her) refusal.”
236 Ga. App. 632; Miles v. State
“ A defendant’s refusal to permit a chemical analysis to be made of his blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substance at
the time of his arrest is admissible in evidence against him in any criminal trial.” …silence in the face of a request to
take such a test shall not be treated differently than a refusal.

246 Ga. App 423; Chamberlain v. State

After being read her Implied Consent rights, Chamberlain submitted to a breath test and on the first sample produced an
adequate sample with a printed result. She failed to provide an adequate breath on the second sample and stated be-
cause of a respiratory infection could not blow sufficiently. Chamberlain then requested an independent blood test due to
her inability to produce a second sufficient breath sample. The Appeals Court ruled the statute expressly provides that a
refusal to give a subsequent sample shall not affect the admissibility of the results of any prior sample. The fact
that Chamberlain failed or refused to provide a second sample, as requested by the State, did not affect the admissibil-
ity of the results of the first sample. But the State’s test results were rendered inadmissible when Chamberlain was de-
nied the right of an independent test without justification. After providing a breath sample sufficient to cause the
breath-testing instrument to produce a printed alcohol concentration analysis on the state-administered breath
test, Chamberlain was entitled to the blood test she requested. The unjustified failure to provide the test is a viola-
tion of the statute and precludes the State from introducing evidence regarding its test.

54
© GBI-DOFS 2021
2008 Ga App Lexis 696 Thrasher v State A08A0538
It would make little sense to hold that the result of the first test was inadmissible due to the defendant’s inability to imme-
diately give a second breath sample when a complete refusal or failure to take a second test does not affect the ad-
missibility of the results of the first sample.

266 Ga App 762 Collier v. State S04G1409

A suspect refusing to submit to a chemical test under the Implied Consent statute was coerced to provide a
sample and thus the results of the test were suppressed. The police threatened the suspect by saying they would
obtain a warrant and forcibly draw blood if the suspect did not comply with the Implied Consent request. The Implied
Consent statute grants the suspect an opportunity to refuse to take a blood alcohol test.
(Note: OCGA 40-5-67.1 was amended in 2006 to read “(d.1) Nothing in this Code section shall be deemed to preclude
the acquisition or admission of evidence of a violation of Code Section 40-6-391 if obtained by voluntary consent or a
search warrant as authorized by the Constitution or laws of this state or the United States.”)

2009 Ga App Lexis 26 State v Quezada A08A1803

The court ruled that simply asking someone a second time if they wanted to submit to a chemical test was not
equivalent to coercion. “A police officer may attempt to persuade a suspect to rescind her initial refusal to submit to
chemical testing, so as long as any procedure utilized by an officer in attempting to persuade a defendant to rescind his
refusal is fair and reasonable.” Note that simply telling the subject to blow into the instrument after a refusal was not
considered “fair and reasonable.” (See Howell v State 266 Ga App 480 and Baddeley v State A18A1623)

A18A1623 Baddeley v. State

Both the trooper and Baddeley testified that after initially refusing the test, Baddeley“ changed his mind, “and there was
no evidence that he did so as a result of any threats or other coercive techniques. Rather, the State showed that Bad-
deley voluntarily consented to taking the State-administered blood test after being told that he would lose his
license if he failed to comply.

266 Ga App 480 Howell v. State

After refusing to undergo chemical testing pursuant to an implied consent reading, Howell was placed in front of an Intox-
ilyzer 5000 and instructed to comply. The court found that Howell did not voluntarily rescind his refusal and that the
state’s test should be suppressed. “In order to be effective, a subsequent consent after a refusal must be made:
(1) within a very short and reasonable time after the prior first refusal; (2) when the test administered upon the subse-
quent consent would still be accurate; (3) when the testing equipment is still readily available; (4) when honoring the re-
quest would result in no substantial inconvenience or expense to the police and (5) when the individual requesting the
test has been in the custody of the arresting officer and under observation for the whole time since arrest.” (See DPS v
Seay A92A0826)

270 Ga App 301 The State vs. Simmons

The court found no basis to permit the withdrawal of consent to State testing once consent has been given and is
an accomplished fact. This means a defendant can not invoke the right to refuse testing of the sample once a blood
sample has been drawn.

270 Ga App 709 Shaheed v. The State

This case vacated a conviction of DUI less safe where the conviction was based upon the refusal of the subject
to submit to both the field sobriety evaluations and the chemical test. The appellate court ruled “Shaheed was a less
safe driver solely on the smell of alcohol and his refusal to submit to field sobriety tests and chemical testing. According-
ly, because there was nothing from which the jury could have inferred that [Shaheed] was under the influence of [alcohol]
to the extent that he was a less safe driver, such as additional evidence of his physical condition or conduct at the time of
his arrest, his conviction…must be set aside.” While “refusal to submit to chemical testing may be considered as
positive evidence creating an inference that the test would show the presence of alcohol, it also does not create
an inference that he had impaired driving ability as a result of drinking alcohol.”

55
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

A05A1491 Hoffman v. The State.

Refusal to submit to field sobriety tests ... is admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication and
together with other evidence would support an inference that the suspect was an impaired driver.

286 Ga App 712 Horne v State A07A1563

In this case Horne submitted to field sobriety but refused chemical testing. Horne then challenged the sufficiency of the
evidence regarding his DUI conviction. The court ruled to prove impairment, the State may present evidence of three
types: “(i) erratic driving behavior, (ii) refusal to take field sobriety tests and the breath or blood test, and (iii) the officer's
own observations (such as smelling alcohol and observing strange behavior) and resulting opinion that the alcohol made
it less safe for the defendant to drive. Horne's “refusal to submit to an alco-sensor test and to a later chemical test
of [his] breath is circumstantial evidence of [his] guilt.” Together with other evidence, such refusals “would sup-
port [the] inference that [Horne] was an impaired driver.” A police officer may give opinion testimony as to the state
of sobriety of a DUI suspect and whether appellant was under the influence to the extent it made him less safe to drive.
(See updated opinions in State v Bradberry A20A1460 and Elliott v State S18A1204)

A20A1460 State v Bradberry

In this case the trial court granted denied the motion to suppress evidence of Bradberry's refusal to take the alco-sensor
breath test. The Court noted that although the issue involves an alco-sensor preliminary breath test, rather than the type
of breathalyzer breath tests involved in Elliott and Olevik, Bradberry would have been required to perform the affirmative
act of blowing into the alco-sensor device for a sustained period of time. Thus, because Bradberry had the right to refuse
to provide incriminating evidence by performing such an affirmative act under Paragraph XVI, the admission of evi-
dence of his refusal to take a preliminary breath test violates the state constitutional right against self-
incrimination.

283 Ga App 814 State v Brookbank A06A2036

Trial court erred in suppressing defendant's refusal to submit to a breath test, as the implied consent notice given was
substantially accurate and timely given, and irrespective of whether the refusal resulted from defendant's confusion, it
nevertheless remained a refusal. The deputy explained the implied consent law to Brookbank, but Brookbank simply dis-
agreed with the deputy's explanation. The court emphasized that the law does not require the arresting officer to en-
sure that the driver understands the implied consent notice and the officer was under no duty to give further
warnings or instructions after the implied consent warning was given properly at the time of arrest.

286 Ga App 542 Stewart v State A07A0232

Because Detective Doyle read Stewart the implied consent notice in an accurate and timely fashion, that notice was valid
irrespective of Stewart's claimed inability to understand it. As a result, even if Stewart's subsequent refusal to provide a
breath sample resulted from a failure to comprehend the consequences of his conduct, it is nevertheless admissible
against him. ... In all cases the court is required to find only that the implied consent law was conveyed to the … driver.
The State is under no duty to prove [that] the … driver fully understood his rights under [that] law. To hold other-
wise, and allow an intoxicated driver's professed inability to understand the implied consent warning to vitiate either the
implied consent or the revocation of it, would so undermine OCGA § 40-5-55 (a) as to render it meaningless. Indeed,
such a holding would actually benefit most those drivers who pose the greatest threat on the road — i.e., those who are
so impaired that, even though conscious, are unable to comprehend their circumstances.

A17A2085 Cherry v State

"Because a breath test was permitted as a search incident to Cherry's DUI arrest, Cherry's refusal to take the state-
administered breath test was not the exercise of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting evidence that Cherry refused to take the breath test required under
Georgia's Implied Consent law." This finding was overruled in Elliott v State (S18A1204)

56
© GBI-DOFS 2021

S18A1204, Elliott v State

Admission of evidence that a defendant refused to submit to a chemical test of breath pursuant to OCGA § 40-5-
67.1 (b) violates Paragraph XVI of the Georgia Constitution...The protection against compelled self-incrimination pro-
vided ... the Georgia Constitution does afford the right to refuse such a [breath] test . See also Olevik v State S17A0738

Request for an attorney before submitting to an Implied Consent test

281 Ga 306 Rackoff v State (Ga Supreme)

DUI suspects are not entitled to consult with a lawyer before deciding whether to submit to a breath test under
the Sixth Amendment or the Georgia Constitution. Also see 209 Ga. App. 270; Bowman v. Palmour, State v. Licata
A17A1200

244 Ga. App. 123; Fairbanks v. State

The court affirmed Fairbanks’ conviction of DUI, holding that his repeated response that he wanted an attorney pre-
sent each time the arresting officer asked if he would submit to a chemical test amounted to a refusal to submit
to testing, authorizing the admission into evidence of his refusal.

253 Ga. App. 412, State v. Boger

The appellate court held that the trial court erred in excluding appellee’s failure to submit to the alco-sensor test at the
scene of the stop because appellee’s refusal could not have been based on a belief that he was entitled to an attorney
prior to taking the test. However, the court held that evidence as to the test provided at the police station should be
suppressed, as appellee, misled by the police officer, believed that he was entitled to an attorney prior to sub-
mitting to such test.

Use of Blood/Urine Samples obtained pursuant to Implied Consent Law

228 Ga. App. 825; The State v. Jewell

Blood and urine samples taken from the suspect pursuant to the Implied Consent Law for the purpose of determining if
the defendant is under the influence of alcohol or drugs cannot be used for prosecution of drug possession. ”This court
held that consent for one purpose does not mean for ANY purpose, and therefore the consent was not the product
of an essentially free and unrestrained choice."

Certificates of Inspection Admissibility

224 Ga. App.890; Harmon v. State

The certificates required by OCGA 40-6-392 (f) are not “tests which generally are carried out during the course of the
investigation of a crime”, and, therefore, the certificates are “not the type of investigation-generated written scientific re-
port subject to the discovery provisions of OCGA 17-7-211.” Instead, these inspections are conducted without regard to
the investigation of any particular crime or case, but are done to assure the breath-testing instruments are periodically
inspected, tested, and standardized, and that all the electronic and operating components are properly attached and are
in good working order. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in allowing the certificate of inspection to be introduced even
though it was not provided to Harmon before trial.

57
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
236 Ga. App. 842; Andries v. State
…the trial court did not err in admitting photocopies of the certificates of inspection in this case. Officer testified
that he was familiar with the documents and that he recognized them as photocopies of the original certificate posted
next to the Intoxilyzer 5000 on which the defendant was tested. Also see 238 Ga. App. 442; Wright v. State

Operator’s Permit

240 Ga. App. 461; Prindle v. State

Given the undisputed evidence that the officer conducting the test was trained to use the machine used here, took a re-
fresher course on its use, and had a certificate that was valid on its face on the date of the test, we find that the state
satisfied its burden of proving the officer had a valid permit.

More than Two Sequential Breath Tests

237 Ga. App. 817; Davis v. State

After providing two breath tests with adequate breath samples in which the results exceeded the 0.020 allowed differ-
ence. The subject was requested to take a third test which was within the 0.020 limit. The court ruled this test not admis-
sible because OCGA 40-6-392 (a)(1)(B) provides only two tests with adequate breath samples can be requested.

Intoxilyzer Operating Properly

225 Ga. App. 678; Renschen v. State

The state showed that the machine used was certified as being in good working order by the Division of Forensic
Sciences of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The officer who performed the test on Renschen also testified
that the machine was in good working order and was performing properly. This was sufficient to satisfy the stat-
utes’ requirements.

237 Ga. App. 875; Lanier v. State

“…the State introduced a certificate of inspection performed before the defendant’s test and after the defendant’s test
showing the machine was operating properly. In addition, the operator testified that the instrument was operating proper-
ly at the time he performed the test on the defendant. …an inspection directly before and after each defendant’s test
is not required.”

Smith v. The State A16A0746

Because an inspection certificate is not testimonial in nature, a defendant has no right to confront the inspector who pro-
duced it and the State need not produce the inspector as a witness at trial in order to introduce the certificates
into evidence. See Ritter v State A10A1492.

Intoxilyzer and margin of error (Sampling Variability)

248 Ga. App. 806; Bagwell v. State

The trial court did not err in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the per se charge. The Intoxilyzer’s margin of
error related to the weight given the test results rather than their admissibility, and the test results were direct evi-
dence of guilt. (Also See 235 Ga. App. 791; Cawthon v. State)

58
© GBI-DOFS 2021

DUI Drugs

271 Ga. Supreme 398; Love v. State

The Court reversed appellant’s conviction of driving with marijuana in his blood or urine, holding that the statute is an
unconstitutional denial of equal protection. The Court held that the distinction between users of legal and illegal
marijuana in the statute was arbitrarily drawn and was not directly related to the public safety purpose of the
legislation.

272 Ga. Supreme 733; Ayers v. State

The court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to dismiss criminal charges against Ayers, and held that the equal protection of
law articulated in Love v. State does not preclude an indictment which charges reckless driving and first degree vehicular
homicide through reckless driving where the reckless driving is based upon consumption of marijuana.

Sandlin v State A10A2197

The court ruled that Sandlin was not required to prove that he was legally entitled to use alprazolam in order to
assert an equal protection challenge to 40-6-391 (a)(6) as articulated in Love v State.

248 Ga. App. 474; Keenum v. State

“Legal “ cocaine use. Keenum was convicted of driving under the influence of drugs. On appeal, he contended that
OCGA 40-6-391(a) (6) had been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Love v. State. Affirming, the court held
that while there could be instances of legal marijuana use, there would never be an instance of legal cocaine use so
as to make the statute an unconstitutional denial of equal protection as to a cocaine intoxication charge.

302 Ga. App 753 Myers v State A10A0106

“DUI is a crime of general not specific intent. The state does not have to prove that the defendant intended to drive
under the influence, only that the defendant was in an intoxicated condition and that she intended to
drive...Voluntary intoxication is not an excuse for any criminal act.”

Qualifications of person drawing blood

272 Ga. Supreme 169; Peek v. State

To be admissible the qualifications of the person drawing the blood must be proven by one of two ways. 1. The
State may call as a witness the person who withdrew the blood and have that person testify as to his or her qualifica-
tions. (Harden v. State, 210 Ga. App. 673). 2. The State may produce a certification by the office of the Secretary of
State or by the Department of Human Resources that a person was qualified to draw blood as required by OCGA 40-6-
392.
{Statute was amended in 200l legislation to include the testimony under oath of the blood drawer’s supervisor or medical
records custodian that the blood drawer was properly trained and authorized to draw blood as an employee of the medi-
cal facility or employer.}

59
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
Challenge. Implied Consent Notice; OCGA 40-5-67.1; OCGA 40-5-55(a)

272 Ga. Supreme 605; Klink v. State; Watt v. State

The Court held that OCGA 40-5-67.1, that provides for the notice of implied consent to chemical testing, was not
unconstitutional. (Precedent modified by Olevik v State)

275 Ga. Supreme 309; Young v. State

The Court denied the motion to suppress the results of the state-administered breath tests based on the alleged uncon-
stitutionality of the implied consent warning provision of OCGA 40-5-67.1. The implied consent warning did not vio-
late the equal protection clause, as discriminating against persons charged with DUI, because it did not inform them
that the results of a chemical test can be used against them at trial.

275 Ga. Supreme 283; Rodriguez v. State

The trial court did not err by failing to suppress the results of the state-administered blood alcohol tests because his im-
plied consent warnings were not given to him in Spanish. Neither due process nor equal protection require the im-
plied consent warnings to be given in a language the driver understands. (ref. State v. Tosar; 180 Ga. App.885.)
246 Ga. App. 344; Crawford v. State
The officer read the Implied Consent Notice before formally placing Crawford under arrest. After the rights were read to
Crawford, she agreed to submit to an alcosensor evaluation. The test was positive for alcohol. The officer placed her
under arrest and transported her to jail where she agreed to take the state administered breath test. Crawford appeals
that the implied consent notice was not read at the time of arrest, and that because the officer read the notice just before
asking her to take the alcosensor field test, she was confused and deprived of the right to make an intelligent decision
whether she should take the state administered test. The Court held Crawford was not free to leave even before the ad-
ministration of the alcosensor test, the reading of the notice was done at the “time of arrest” as required by the statute.
The Court agreed with Crawford that the implied consent notice should not be read before the administration of
the alcosensor test because that may mislead the driver into believing that he or she is required to submit to
that test. The Court was not persuaded by Crawford’s argument that the timing of the reading was so confusing that she
was unable to make an intelligent decision about whether to submit to the state administered test. However, had she
refused to take the state administered test, thereby suffering adverse consequences, she would have a better argument
that she was confused about whether to submit to the state test.

277 Ga. Supreme 282; Cooper v. State

Cooper was convicted of DUI after submitting to a blood test that was administered because Cooper was involved in a
traffic accident resulting in serious injuries. Reversing, the court held that to the extent that OCGA 40-5-55(a) requires
chemical testing of a driver involved in an accident resulting in serious injuries or fatalities regardless of proba-
ble cause, it authorizes unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Georgia and United States Con-
stitutions.

Hough v. State S05G0311 and Handschuh v. State S06G0640

The state may constitutionally require a suspect who has not yet been arrested to submit to a chemical test of
his blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substances where the suspect has been involved in a traffic accident
resulting in serious injuries or fatalities (as defined by 40-5-55) and the investigating law enforcement officer
has probable cause to believe that the suspect was driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs... in
circumstances where there has been no traffic accident resulting in serious injuries or fatalities but the law en-
forcement officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect was driving under the influence of alcohol or
other drugs, the suspect must be arrested prior to a reading of implied consent.

60
© GBI-DOFS 2021
285 Ga App 18 State v. Austell A062171
Trial court properly granted defendant's motion to suppress the results of a chemical test of his blood based on
the undue delay between his arrest, after a traffic stop, and the reading of his implied consent warnings.
The Trooper testified that he delayed reading Austell his rights because, with everything that had taken place, he felt that
it would be safer for him to get Austell to the jail where it would be lighted, where others would be, rather than just read-
ing Austell his rights on the interstate with only the two of them present. The trooper in this case was forced to subdue
Austell due to the fact that he resisted arrest. The court opined that “although we are mindful of the difficulties the Troop-
er had with Austell, various opportunities existed for him to read Austell his rights before he did, and our law demands
that the rights be read “at the time of arrest, or at a time as close in proximity to the instant of arrest as the circumstances
of the individual case might warrant.”

283 Ga App 872 Dunbar v State A07A0496

Approximately 25 minutes elapsed between the time the officer handcuffed Dunbar and the time the officer read her the
implied consent notice. Dunbar argues that the 25-minute delay did not satisfy the requirement in OCGA § 40-6-392 (a)
(4) to read the implied consent notice “at the time of arrest.” However, the notice is deemed timely if it is given “at a time
as close in proximity to the instant of arrest as the circumstances of the individual case might warrant.” Here, the officer
called a tow truck because he determined that neither occupant of Dunbar's vehicle was fit to drive. He therefore inven-
toried the vehicle before releasing it to the tow truck. He also evaluated the intoxicated passenger to rule out any safety
threats posed by him or potential weapons in Dunbar's vehicle. As the tow truck arrived, and before transporting Dunbar
to the sheriff's office, the officer read Dunbar the notice. In light of the circumstances of this case, we affirm the trial
court's ruling that the delay in reading the implied consent notice was warranted.

285 Ga App 640 State v Underwood A07A0576

Because the trial court's finding that defendant was under arrest only for the possession of drug-related items
at the time the implied consent notice was read to him, although probable cause existed to arrest him for DUI,
its order excluding the results of the state-administered breath test was upheld on appeal.

296 Ga Supreme 822 Williams v State S14A1625

The Supreme Court of Georgia clearly distinguished a DUI suspect’s “consent” for purposes of the Implied Con-
sent statute from “actual consent” (which permits a warrantless search of a suspect’s bodily fluids) under the Fourth
Amendment and Georgia Constitution. Williams simply clarified that officers in the field must do two things to obtain con-
sent to state-administered chemical testing: (1) observe the requirements of the Implied Consent statute, and (2) ensure
that suspects consenting to chemical testing do so freely, voluntarily, and without unconstitutional coercion.

State v. Jung A16A0527

In determining whether the defendant gave actual consent to a state-administered breath test, the trial court is
required to address “the voluntariness of the consent under the totality of the circumstances.” Under Georgia
law, “voluntariness must reflect an exercise of free will, not merely a submission to or acquiescence in the express or
implied assertion of authority.” In making this determination, we consider a number of factors, including “prolonged ques-
tioning; the use of physical punishment; the accused's age, level of education, intelligence, length of detention, and ad-
visement of constitutional rights; and the psychological impact of these factors on the accused.” And “no single factor is
controlling.” Our Supreme Court has also held that a high level of intoxication may be sufficient to support a trial
court's finding that a statement or consent is involuntary. (See also State v Young A16A1435, State v. Domenge-
Delhoyo A16A0362, State v. Williams A16A0509)

State v Depol A15A1947

Although Depol was under the influence of alcohol, the video clearly demonstrates that he was also capable of
understanding what was said to him, able to freely and voluntarily consent, and actually did so. Accordingly, we
reverse the trial court's grant of Depol's motion to suppress. In this case, we have reviewed the video of Depol's interac-
tions with the deputies and conclude that it cannot support the trial court's observation that it shows “the Defendant was
extremely impaired” and “without the ability to voluntarily consent to a search of his breath.” While Depol sways slightly
at times, it is clear from the video of his approximately 45–minute interaction with the officers that he was capable of ex-

61
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
ercising sufficient free will to consent to a breath test.

Bailey v State A16A0200

Bailey was unconscious when a state trooper arrived at the hospital. The state trooper ordered hospital staff to obtain
samples of Bailey's blood and urine for drug and alcohol testing. The State, however, produced no evidence of exigent
circumstances. For example, there was no evidence regarding how long the warrant process was expected to take and
whether officers could have been seeking a warrant while Bailey was being transported to the hospital. In light of
McNeely and Williams, Bailey's implied consent was insufficient to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, and he could
not have given actual consent to the search and seizure of his blood and urine, as he was unconscious. Be-
cause the State failed to demonstrate that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search, the trial court erred in
admitting into evidence the results of Bailey's blood and urine tests.

Olevik v State S17A0738

"In sum, Paragraph XVI prohibits compelling a suspect to perform an act that itself generates incriminating evidence; it
does not prohibit compelling a suspect to be present so that another person may perform an act generating such evi-
dence...Although a person generally expels breath from his body involuntarily and automatically, the State is not merely
collecting breath expelled in a natural manner...Sustained strong blowing into a machine for several seconds requires a
suspect to breathe unnaturally for the purpose of generating evidence against himself... Breathing deep lung air into a
breathalyzer is a self-incriminating act that Paragraph XVI prevents the State from compelling... Although the
scope of our right against compelled self-incrimination extends to acts, it is only compelled acts of the defendant that fall
within the protections of Paragraph XVI. For example, we have held that a defendant's right against compelled self-
incrimination was violated when he was compelled to place his foot in certain footprints located near the crime scene...In
contrast, the right against compelled self-incrimination is not violated where a defendant is compelled only to be present
so that certain incriminating evidence may be procured from him...In other instances, even if the right was implicated,
we concluded that no violation had occurred where the defendant consented to the act rather than being com-
pelled."

Schmitz v State S17A1199

"The implied consent notice is not per se coercive on its face...[A]lthough [there may be] deficiencies in the implied
consent notice, there is no evidence that OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b) creates widespread confusion about drivers' rights and
the consequences for refusing to submit to a chemical test or for taking and failing a test." (See Olevik v State
S17A0738)

McMaster v State A17A2083

Article I, Section I, Paragraph XIII of the Georgia Constitution allows a warrantless breath test to be administered as a
search incident to arrest. (See Olevik v State, (806 SE2d at 512)). Consequently, the warrantless test of MacMaster's
breath was authorized by the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement under both the
United States and Georgia Constitutions, irrespective of whether MacMaster's consent was freely and voluntari-
ly obtained for the breath test."

Mueller v State A02A1847

Mueller appealed his conviction for DUI contending that he was given a defective implied consent warning. Mueller ar-
gues that because the arresting officer initially requested both a breath and blood test, both tests had to be admin-
istered. This argument is directly contradicted by OCGA § 40-5-67.1(a), which provides that "the requesting law en-
forcement officer shall designate which test or tests shall be administered initially and may subsequently require a
test or tests of any substances not initially tested." Under the implied consent warning, the arresting officer's deci-
sion to have the State administer only a breath test could not have misled Mueller into believing that he could
not request an independent blood test from qualified personnel of his own choosing.

62
© GBI-DOFS 2021
Independent Blood Test Request

245 Ga. App. 750; Joel v. State

Joel was stopped for DUI in Forsyth County and took the state-administered chemical test at the sheriff’s office. He then
asked to be taken to Northside Hospital in Atlanta for an independent test. The arresting officer, protesting that it would
be “too dangerous for me to take him that far into metro Atlanta,” took him to North Fulton Hospital for his blood test. Re-
versing the trial court’s denial of Joel’s motion to exclude the results of the state-administered test, the court held that
Joel’s statutory right to an independent test of his own choosing under OCGA 40-6-392 (a)(3) was violated when
he was denied the right to a test at a facility of his choice that was “reasonably close.”
Other cases: State v. Hughes; 181 Ga. App. 464, O’Dell v. State; 200 Ga. App. 655, Akin v. State; 193 Ga. App. 194.

254 Ga. App. 807; Hendrix v. State

Request for an additional test outside arresting officer’s jurisdiction by 25-30 miles was not reasonable consid-
ering officer offered to take suspect to any local hospital he wanted and that the requested facility would take 1
hour travel time round-trip. Factors considered when determining if a request is reasonable include: (1) availability of
or access to funds or resources to pay for the requested test; (2) a protracted delay in giving of the test if the officer com-
plies with the accused’s requests; (3) availability of police time and other resources; (4) location of the requested facili-
ties…and (5) opportunity and ability of the accused to make arrangements personally for testing.

255 Ga. App.685; State v. Braunecker

The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s suppression of the state administered breath test and held the police denied
appellant the opportunity to have an independent blood test. The appellant made the request to the booking of-
ficer while being photographed. The request was made 30 minutes after the breath test, the booking officer did not
inform or make attempt to contact the arresting officer. (See Covert v. State; 196 Ga. App. 679 request made to jailer
within hour of breath test resulted in suppression of test result.)

256 Ga. App. 726: Ladow v. State

The court reversed the trial court’s admission of the state administered blood test in Ladow’s DUI case, holding that her
request “I want a blood test.” was for an additional, independent blood test and the state’s failure to accommo-
date it foreclosed introduction of the state administered test. (See also Henry v State A20A0501)

A15A1783 Farmer v. State

Here, when the trooper asked Farmer if she was willing to submit to a breath test under the Implied Consent
Law, she initially responded by saying that she would take a urine test. The trooper then explained that he was
asking Farmer to submit to a breath test and she told him that she would submit to the designated test. Farmer never
requested an independent test of her urine, blood, or breath. Moreover, when Farmer told the trooper that she would
take a urine test, she was requesting that the trooper designate a urine test, rather than a breath test, as the State-
administered chemical test.

A09A2181 England v. State

After the officer read England the Implied Consent notice and asked him if he would submit to the State-administered
chemical tests of his breath, England responded that he had concerns about the accuracy of the breath test and
stated that he would rather submit to a blood test. Consequently, the officer re-read the implied consent notice
and asked England if he would submit to the State-administered tests of his blood, to which England agreed. At
no point did England request another, independent test of his blood. Given these circumstances, we find that England
was not requesting an independent blood test but was requesting that the officer designate a blood test, rather
than a breath test, as the State-administered chemical test.

63
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision
256 Ga. App. 749: State v. Schmidt
When Schmidt was pulled over for erratic driving he refused to submit to a breath test and requested an independent
blood test. Once he was at the jail, he consented to the breath test, after having been read his implied consent rights
again, but refused to provide a second breath sample. He did not repeat his request for a blood test. Affirming the trial
court’s suppression of the breath test results, the court held that Schmidt’s refusal to provide a second breath sample
does not preclude him from his right to an independent test.

263 Ga. App.222; Cole v. State

Cole was arrested for DUI on Memorial Day and requested an independent blood test. The arresting officer took him to
the Houston Medical Center emergency room where blood was drawn but the lab was closed for the holiday. The officer
testified that he was unaware of any place that would be open to test the blood given the holiday and the time. The of-
ficer stated that he did not attempt to contact either of the other two possible facilities he knew of in the area, apparently
based on his assumption that they would also be closed. . And the record shows that the officer did not suggest any oth-
er testing alternatives, such as calling Cole’s personal physician or his lawyer, or submitting the sample to the State’s
crime lab. Reversing denial of Cole’s motion to suppress, the court held that an arresting officer has a duty to make
reasonable efforts to accommodate a request for an independent blood test and failed to make such efforts
here; and did not explore any alternative testing measure after discovering Houston Medical Center was closed. A
blood sample is not the same as a legally admissible blood test, regardless of whether the blood sample could
conceivably have been later used to obtain an independent test.

221 Ga App 274 Hulsinger v State A96A0631

Once an individual requests an independent test, the officer’s concomitant duty to accommodate arises and
continues until the accused obtains an admissible test or until it is determined that, despite reasonable efforts,
such a test can not be obtained. In Hulsinger v. State, the officer gave Hulsinger a phone and a phone book, and
Hulsinger arranged a test at a nearby hospital. After the nurse drew his blood, she told Hulsinger that he would have to
contact his lawyer about having it tested. The officer suggested that he contact his lawyer or a doctor, and he offered to
store the sample for Hulsinger. The court ruled that, there was some evidence, although slight, that the officer had tried
to help solve the problem encountered at the hospital. Furthermore, Hulsinger did not produce evidence that a test could
be performed anywhere nearby at that hour.

282 Ga App 63 Whittle v State A06A1134

Whittle was arrested for DUI, took the state’s test and requested an independent test. The arresting officer testified that
Whittle was unfamiliar with the area and asked the officer to recommend a hospital where a blood test could be obtained.
He stated that he recommended Emory Adventist and that Whittle agreed. Whittle, on the other hand, testified that he did
not want to have the test performed at Emory Adventist Hospital because he was not familiar with that facility. Whittle
claimed that he requested and suggested four other hospitals for his independent test. The officer acknowledged that
there was some discussion about testing at Kennestone Hospital, but stated that Kennestone was not a viable option
and that he had been advised by the hospital staff that Kennestone and the other Wellstar-affiliated hospitals were no
longer performing independent tests on persons who were not being admitted to the hospitals for medical reasons.
Whittle failed to provide any evidence to refute the officer's testimony, or to otherwise show that his requested
hospitals were available for testing at that time. Here, the trial court found that the officer made a reasonable
effort to accommodate Whittle's request for an independent blood test.

274 Ga App 248 Koontz v State A05A0284

Koontz took the state’s test and requested and independent test. Although Deputy Williams helped Koontz get mon-
ey and took him to the hospital, he knew that Koontz could not get his blood tested there at that time, and he
took no additional steps whatsoever to assist Koontz. He saw the nurse give Koontz his blood sample, but he then
took Koontz back to the jail. He did not suggest any alternatives, call other hospitals, or offer any other assistance. Also,
there is nothing in the record to show that Koontz did not have enough money for another attempt, that the officer was
pressed for time or otherwise prevented from trying again, that another attempt would be too long delayed, or that the
other hospitals were too far away or similarly unavailable. In this case, Deputy Williams helped create the problem
that he then failed to help solve. Accordingly, he failed to reasonably accommodate Koontz's request for an in-
dependent test. If Williams had told Koontz he could store and test his blood sample later, this might alter our conclu-

64
© GBI-DOFS 2021

sion. But it would require some evidence, possibly in the form of expert testimony, about the circumstances under which
a blood sample can be stored and tested later.

283 Ga App 284 State v Howard A06A2365

Howard requested an independent test but did not have sufficient cash on hand to pay for the test. Howard then
requested that a relative be allowed to go to the facility to pay for the test in advance. The officer denied How-
ard’s request citing safety concerns. The court ruled that Howard was not allowed even to attempt to obtain the
needed funds, nor did the officer provide any assistance other than offering to go by an ATM. As the trial court pointed
out, where security is of concern, relatives could have been asked to come to a secure location, such as the jail, in order
to provide Howard with the necessary funds. No evidence indicated that such arrangements would have caused extend-
ed delays, nor that the police officer lacked time or resources to make such an accommodation. Vague security con-
cerns, unsupported by any specific evidence, do not provide sufficient grounds to deny an accused's request
for an independent test by personnel of his own choosing. “While it is not the officer's duty to insure the perfor-
mance of an independent test, he cannot prevent a defendant from exercising his right to such a test.” The officer re-
buffed every suggestion made by Howard and his response was not a “reasonable effort to accommodate” Howard's
request for an independent blood test. This had the effect of denying Howard his right to such a test under OCGA 40-6-
392.

Procedural Issues

266 Ga App 595 State v. Palmaka

Clarifies the qualifications for an admissible breath test according to GBI rules. Emphasizes that “administrative, pro-
cedural, and/or clerical steps performed in conducting a test shall not constitute a part of the approved meth-
od of analysis.” This removes procedural objections to admissibility of breath tests as any test conducted on an Intox.
5000 that has been inspected periodically and performed by an individual with a valid permit meets the statutory re-
quirement for an approved test. (see State v Padidham A11A0678)

255 Ga. App. 305 Jarriel v. State,

The three hour requirement stated in O.C.G.A. 40-6-391(a)(5) (per se DUI alcohol) may be proved by circumstan-
tial evidence.

281 Ga App 252 Simmons v State A06A1517

This DUI by golf cart defines vehicle in relation to the DUI statute. The court pointed out that 40-6-391 refers to moving
vehicles, not motor vehicles,” and is not limited to vehicles which are self-propelled. A “vehicle” is defined in OCGA §
40-1-1 (75) to mean “every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or
drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.” In addition the court
reiterated the DUI statute “draws no distinction between driving on public roads versus private thoroughfares”;
further, the fact that the act was committed on private property does not give immunity from prosecution for this crime.

286 Ga App 441 Trull v State A07A1294

Alco-sensor results are not used as evidence of the amount of alcohol or drug in a person's blood. Instead, the
alco-sensor is used as an initial screening device to aid the police officer in determining probable cause to arrest a mo-
torist suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol.

2008 Ga App Lexis 1094 Laseter v State A08A1245

We have consistently held...that results of Intoxilyzer breath tests comply with the standard for admissibility as scientifi-
cally reliable evidence. And as the Supreme Court observed in Lattarulo, “no procedure is infallible. An accused may
always introduce the evidence of the possibility of error or circumstances that might have caused the machine
to malfunction. Such evidence would relate to the weight rather than the admissibility of breathalyzer results.”

65
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

Miller v State A17A0651

"Evidence of a prior DUI charge “shall be admissible” in a DUI prosecution where the defendant refused to take
a state-administered chemical test to show “knowledge, plan, or absence of mistake or accident.” OCGA § 24–4–
417 (a) (1). See Frost, 297 Ga. at 301, 773 S.E.2d 700. Proof of a prior DUI may strengthen substantially the inference
about the presence of an intoxicant. This is so because it might be inferred from evidence of prior occasions in which the
accused had driven under the influence that the accused had an awareness that his ingestion of an intoxicant impaired
his ability to drive safely. Such awareness in turn would offer the explanation for why the accused refused the test on this
occasion[,] nam[ely] that he was conscious of his guilt and knew that the test would likely tend to show he was in fact
under the influence of a prohibited substance to an extent forbidden by the DUI statute."

Adams v State A17A1977

"[Adams], having accepted the benefit of the stipulation in the form of the reinstatement of his license and having shown
no fraud or mistake, acquiesced to his counsel's stipulation to plead guilty to the DUI and to the admissibility of the
[ALS Stipulation] in a subsequent legal proceeding related to the DUI charge."

Searches and Seizures

State v. Drake A20A0248

The evidence showed that a police sergeant stopped a vehicle driven by Drake after witnessing an improper lane
change. At the sergeant's request, another officer asked Drake if he would consent to a search of his car, and Drake
agreed. Both the field test and the search of Drake's car were completed no more than 14 minutes into the traffic stop.
At that time, however, the sergeant did not provide the traffic citation to Drake but instead asked for permission to
search his person. The Court found that the traffic citation had been written and therefore the purpose of the
stop completed at least five to six minutes before police finished their search of Drake's vehicle. By seeking
Drake's permission to conduct a second search after that time (and at least seven minutes after the comple-
tion of the traffic citation), the State exceeded the scope of a permissible investigation of the initial traffic stop.
Accordingly, the Court agreed with the trial court that police did not have knowledge of any facts justifying an extension
of the traffic stop. Therefore, the Court affirmed that portion of the trial court's order granting Drake's motion to sup-
press the items seized during the search of his person.”

Weaver v State A20A1046

The facts showed that an officer made a stop of an SUV pulling a trailer loaded with salvaged partial truck bodies. The
officer approached the SUV on the passenger side and told the Weaver that he had a non-functioning trailer light. The
officer told appellant that because appellant was “moving around a lot,” he suspected that appellant had drugs and re-
quested consent to search. Weaver consented and methamphetamine was found in the truck. The Court stated that an
officer may continue to detain a driver after the investigation of the traffic violation is complete only if the of-
ficer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the driver was engaged in other illegal activity. Here, the Court
found, the officer continued to question appellant and his passenger about multiple subjects unrelated to the purpose of
the stop even after receiving an answer from dispatch regarding the legality of appellant's license and registration. Ac-
cordingly, the Court concluded, the officer had no basis for prolonging the traffic stop beyond the time reasonably re-
quired to complete his investigation of appellant's traffic violation and thus suppressed the search of the vehicle. (See
also Terry v State A20A1627, Hill v State A210264 )

State v. Loechinger A20A1638

The evidence showed that after Loechinger was pulled over on I-285 and arrested for driving with a suspended li-
cense, the arresting officer conducted an inventory search of the vehicle prior to impounding it, and methamphetamine
was found in the center console. The officer testified it was the policy of his department to inventory only those items
that he actually removed from a car prior to it being impounded, limited to items that he deemed to be valuable, such
as electronics, money and jewelry. In the instant case, the officer testified that he did not observe any such valuable
items in the car during his inventory search. Thus the Court held, because evidence showed that the impoundment
of the car was lawful and that the search was conducted in good faith pursuant to standard police department
procedure for a valid inventory purpose that admission of the evidence was proper.

66
© GBI-DOFS 2021

Gowen v State A21A0651

The evidence showed that while an officer was on patrol, he observed a minivan driving through a local apartment
complex and ran a check of the vehicle's license plate. The check showed that a U.S. Marshal's warrant had been is-
sued for appellant, the registered owner of the van. The officer and his partner then detained appellant until they could
confirm the details of the warrant. Pursuant to the appellant’s request to retrieve his cell phone from the van the officer
opened the door and detected the odor of burnt marijuana. Thereafter, the officers got a warrant to search the vehicle
based on the odor of burnt marijuana and the fact that the federal warrant related to a drug offense. The appellant was
charged with possession of cocaine based on evidence found during a search of his vehicle. The Court agreed that
the smell of burnt marijuana in appellant's van provided police with probable cause to search that vehicle.

Semich v State A98A1557

With the blue lights atop their nearby patrol car flashing, Officers Johnson and Wright directed traffic around a dam-
aged utility pole at 1:30 in the morning. Officer Wright observed an approaching vehicle abruptly turn left into a residen-
tial driveway, back out, and proceed in the opposite direction. He called Officer Johnson's attention to the car, and both
officers saw it weave within its lane. Suspecting intoxication, they followed in their car and saw the vehicle again weave
within its lane after making a left turn. They pulled it over to investigate. A brief investigative stop of a vehicle by a law
enforcement officer is considered reasonable if it is justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped
is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. There must be a specific, articulable suspicion which is determined
by looking at the totality of the circumstances, objective observations, information from police reports, the modes or
patterns of certain kinds of lawbreakers, and the inferences drawn and deductions made by a trained law enforcement
officer. This Court has specifically determined that an officer's observation of a motorist's `weaving' may serve
as sufficient reason to warrant an investigative stop for a possible DUI violation.

67
INTOXILYZER 9000 GEORGIA OPERATOR’S REFRESHER TRAINING MANUAL - 2021 Revision

DRY GAS ETHANOL STANDARD FAQS

Evidential breath tests performed on an Intoxilyzer 9000 utilize a dry gas ethanol standard that is analyzed
after the first subject sample to ensure that the instrument is in proper operation. To ensure proper adherence to
quality control practices, GBI-DOFS asks that only dry gas standards approved by GBI-DOFS be utilized for evi-
dential breath testing. Failure to utilize the dry gas ethanol standards recommended by GBI-DOFS may result in
a failure of the quarterly inspection performed in accordance with O.C.G.A.40-6-392 and GBI Rule 92-3. Ven-
dors currently approved for supplying dry gas ethanol standards as described above are:
Vendor Description Size Target Value Part/Cat. No.
CMI/ILMO Ethanol Gas Standard 67L 0.080 BAC P/N 340257
CMI/ CalGaz Ethanol Gas Standard 58L 0.080 BAC P/N 340286
Intoximeter Dry Gas for I9000 55L/208ppm 0.080 U 22-2300-00

Other vendors may be approved as suppliers of dry gas standards if they meet the quality control criteria of GBI-
DOFS. An official list of approved dry gas ethanol standard vendors can be found in GBI-DOFS procedure OP-
SIC 05.
Answers to other frequently asked questions regarding dry gas ethanol standards is as follows:
• 67L dry gas tanks should last for approximately 100 tests.
• Price per cylinder is available from the manufacturer
• Shelf storage life is approximately 2-years, but standards may degrade more quickly after installation.
• The actual target value of the tank varies very slightly with atmospheric pressure, but the instrument
corrects/ compensates the reading for changes in pressure at the testing site. Thus the correct target
value will always be 0.080.
• It is not recommended that dry gas standard tanks be stored at extremely low temperatures. In an
abundance of caution it is advisable to ensure that gas standards are not used or stored for prolonged
periods of time below 50 degrees F.
• The dry gas tanks you purchase are considered hazardous materials for shipping purposes because the
contents of the cylinders are pressurized. Each state has its own regulations about the disposal of these
aluminum cylinders. In all cases, the tanks must be empty prior to disposal.
• General compressed gas handling and disposal information can be found at the following web link:
https://www.ehso.emory.edu/documents/ehs-323-compressed-gas-cylinder-guidelines.pdf
• When working with any chemical there are inherent health and safety risks involved. All individuals
working with dry gas ethanol standards should familiarize themselves with the Material Safety Data
Sheets (MSDS) supplied by the vendor prior to handling or utilizing tanks.
• Information for ILMO products can be found at the site below by clicking on the MSDS Online link.
http://www.ilmoproducts.com/resources/
• Tank changes can be performed by area supervisors or specially trained operators known as agency
contacts. Areas Supervisors will be responsible for training agency contacts in the proper procedures
to replace dry gas tanks and will maintain a list of trained agency contacts at each agency.
• It is important that ethanol gas standard lot number, target value, and expiration date
be properly documented in the instrument record at the time of installation.
68