State v. Dorsey

Defendant appeals his conviction for the traffic crime of driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 487.540(1)(a). He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of an Intoxilyzer test. He contends that the Intoxilyzer does not perform a “chemical analysis” or “chemical test” of the breath within the meaning of ORS 487.540(l)(a). 1 This question was raised but not decided in State v. Wardrip, 55 Or App 117, 637 P2d 219 (1981).

We now hold that, because the Intoxilyzer does determine a person’s blood-alcohol content by measuring the alcohol content of…