Legal Opinion
Borger v. Department of Motor Vehicles
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 17, 2011No. B222315PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
YEGAN, Acting P. J.
Here we hold that a defense expert’s conclusion that there is a margin of error inherent in a blood-alcohol level (BAC) scientifically measured with an “Intoxilyzer 5000,” an approved Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) breath testing device, may not be used to defeat the legislative determination that a person who drives with a reported blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or higher will suffer suspension of the privilege to drive.
Respondent Steven Borger was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and gave two breath tests registering a BAC…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Russell E. Carter v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
- Lake v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. ZuckermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- People v. CooglerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Davenport v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- People v. VangelderCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- Najera v. ShiomotoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Chantry v. DMV CA3California Court of Appeal · 2014