Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ISHOLA v. The STATE.
A jury found Olantunji Ishola guilty of driving with an alcohol concentration greater than 0.10 grams.1 On appeal Ishola argues that the results of his Intoxilyzer 5000 test should have been excluded. We disagree and affirm.
Ishola argues that the officer who tested him discarded an invalid breath test and did not wait the required 20 minutes for observation before giving a subsequent test, rendering the results invalid and the test inadmissible. In support of this argument, Ishola points to the testimony of a chemist familiar with the Intoxilyzer 5000 who testified that the breath test was improperly administered because Ishola was not seated and constantly observed for 20 minutes to see whether he burped, belched, or regurgitated thereby contaminating the breath test.
The jury was not required to believe the chemist's testimony regarding a 20-minute sit-down requirement.2 Even if a 20-minute observation period is a requirement, the State showed that such requirement was satisfied.3 The officer testified that the 20-minute requirement was met in that he stopped Ishola at 3:10 a.m. and the breath test was administered at 3:36 a.m. Although the officer testified that there were probably one and a half minutes where he was securing Ishola's vehicle and did not observe Ishola, “[t]he failure to continuously watch [Ishola] for 20 consecutive minutes prior to the breath test does not require exclusion of the test results.” 4
Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting the breath test results.
Judgment affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(5).
2. It was for the jury to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Butler v. State, 273 Ga. 380, 382(1), 541 S.E.2d 653 (2001).
3. See Klink v. State, 272 Ga. 605, 607(2), 533 S.E.2d 92 (2000) (State complied with 20-minute requirement where defendant was in custody for over 20 minutes).
4. (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Bagwell v. State, 248 Ga.App. 806, 808(1), 547 S.E.2d 377 (2001).
MILLER, Judge.
ANDREWS, P.J., and ELDRIDGE, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. A01A1131.
Decided: August 01, 2001
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)