The Breathalyzer Is a Records Case

Serpa Law Office

We have split our OUI evidence coverage in two. The roadside exercises now have a full page on field sobriety test defense, and the machine has its own page on breathalyzer defense in Massachusetts, with a matching set of breathalyzer FAQs. The split reflects how the cases are defended, because the two kinds of evidence fail in different ways. The tests fail on conditions and scoring. The machine fails on paper.

The Number Arrives with a File

Massachusetts admits a breath test result only when the paperwork holds: an annually certified device, a certified operator, a 15-minute observation period, and a completed sequence of two agreeing breath samples around a calibration standard reading inside its window. G.L. c. 90, § 24K; 501 CMR 2.00. Each requirement is a place where the Commonwealth’s file can fall short, and the file falls short more often than juries would guess.

The Era That Proved the Point

For nearly eight years, breath tests in Massachusetts ran through an agency that withheld its own failed calibration records. The Ananias litigation exposed it, and Commonwealth v. Hallinan, 491 Mass. 730 (2023), presumptively excluded Alcotest 9510 results from June 1, 2011 through April 18, 2019, with plea withdrawal available in affected cases. The lesson survives the scandal: the number is only as good as its records.

What We Do with the File

Every breath test case in this office starts with a demand for the complete file: the device certification, the calibration worksheets, the operator’s card, the observation documentation, and the full test record. Then the file is read against the booking video and the report, minute by minute. An observation period that a camera contradicts, a calibration standard outside 0.074 to 0.086, and a missing annual certificate each become a motion to exclude, and a case without its number returns to being a case about observations, where cross-examination does its work. If a breath test decided your case between 2011 and 2019, call about reopening it. For any pending charge, call 617.936.0201. The consultation is free and confidential.

Client Reviews

He's one of the best people I've met. I'm really appreciative of all the help I received. If you have a serious case, he'll work hard to make sure you have the best outcome. I highly recommend him. You will not be disappointed.

A.J

Mr. Serpa was very helpful with my family member ‘s case. He was able to get it dismissed quickly and easily. He is very professional and very good at what he does. I’m so glad he hired him. You will be glad too if you hire him.

Z.M.

Serpa law office was my attorney of choice for 2 seperate cases I had last year. With both situations, Joseph not only treated me great, delivered the results I was hoping for, and was extremely professional and genuine. I would definitely recommend this law office to anyone in need of legal help.

P.C.

Contact Us

  1. 1 Individual, Hands-On Approach
  2. 2 Winning Trial Record
  3. 3 30 Years Experience
Fill out the contact form or call us at 617.936.0201 to schedule your free consultation.

Leave Us a Message

We Accept the Following Payment Solutions

Greater Boston Criminal Law Alerts

The Breathalyzer Is a Records Case

Massachusetts admits a breath test number only on top of certifications, calibration records, and a watched observation period. Why the machine fails on paper, and how the file is attacked.

Two Rules for Cross-Examination

Two rules govern cross-examination at Serpa Law Office: be fair to the witness and respect the jury. The rest is a controlled conversation that ends where it was designed to end.

Cross-Examining the Field Sobriety Opinion in a Massachusetts OUI Trial

How Serpa Law Office cross-examines the field sobriety opinion in Massachusetts OUI trials: the NHTSA manual, the missing observations, confirmation bias, and innocent explanations.