A breath test result can become one of the most important pieces of evidence in an Idaho DUI case.

If an evidentiary breath test reports an alcohol concentration of .08 or higher, the State may rely on that number to prosecute a DUI even if there is disagreement about how impaired the driver actually appeared. A result of .20 or higher can expose the driver to Idaho's enhanced excessive-DUI penalties.

That does not mean a breath test result should simply be accepted without review.

Idaho has detailed rules governing the instruments used for evidentiary breath testing, the people who operate them, the monitoring period before testing, the collection of breath samples, performance verification, and the records associated with the testing process.

Some breath-test issues are obvious from the police report. Others may not become apparent until the test records, instrument history, operator certification, body-camera footage, and Idaho State Police Forensic Services records are examined together.

This guide explains how evidentiary breath testing works in Idaho, how it differs from a roadside preliminary breath test, what the 15-minute monitoring period is intended to accomplish, why Idaho normally uses more than one breath sample, what sample correlation means, how instruments are checked, and what issues may warrant closer examination in an individual DUI case.

What Does an Idaho Evidentiary Breath Test Measure?

Idaho breath-testing instruments measure alcohol concentration in a person's breath.

Under Idaho Code § 18-8004, breath alcohol concentration is expressed as grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

For most adult noncommercial drivers, an alcohol concentration of .08 or greater can support a per se DUI charge.

Different limits apply in certain circumstances. Commercial drivers and drivers under age 21 are subject to different statutory alcohol-concentration provisions.

A result of .20 or greater can also implicate Idaho's excessive-DUI statute, Idaho Code § 18-8004C.

The breath instrument does not directly draw or analyze blood. It analyzes a breath sample and reports the alcohol concentration in the units established by Idaho law.

Idaho's Implied-Consent Law

Idaho Code § 18-8002 provides that a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in Idaho is deemed to have consented to evidentiary testing when requested by a peace officer who has the legally required grounds to believe the person was driving in violation of Idaho's DUI laws.

Before evidentiary testing is requested, the driver is advised of the consequences of refusing or failing to complete the testing.

Those consequences can be substantial and are separate from the criminal DUI case.

A refusal may result in a separate driver's license suspension, a civil penalty, ignition-interlock requirements, and other consequences.

A person does not have the right under Idaho's implied-consent statute to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to evidentiary testing.

Breath-test refusal issues can become complicated very quickly and are addressed in greater detail in our separate Idaho Refusal Suspensions guide.

What Breath-Testing Instruments Are Used in Idaho?

Idaho State Police Forensic Services is responsible for approving and certifying evidentiary breath-testing instruments used in the state.

Current ISP materials identify two principal instrument families used for evidentiary breath testing:

  • The Lifeloc FC20 series, a portable breath-testing instrument; and

  • The Dräger 9510 series, a benchtop evidentiary breath-testing instrument.

Different instruments have different operating procedures and performance-verification requirements.

That distinction matters.

A case involving a portable Lifeloc instrument should not automatically be analyzed under procedures that apply to a Dräger benchtop instrument, and vice versa.

An attorney reviewing a breath test should first identify the exact instrument used, including the model and individual instrument identification or serial number.

The Breath-Test Operator Must Be Certified

Idaho's current alcohol-testing rules require evidentiary breath tests to be administered by a certified operator.

An operator must complete Idaho State Police-approved training for the instrument being used.

Current Idaho State Police procedures provide that operator certification is valid for two years. If certification expires, the person is not approved to conduct evidentiary tests on the instrument until the required certification is restored.

That creates a straightforward issue to verify in any breath-test case:

Was the person who administered the test properly certified on that instrument at the time of testing?

Usually the answer will be yes.

But it should be confirmed rather than assumed.

The 15-Minute Monitoring Period

Before an evidentiary breath test is administered, Idaho requires a monitoring period.

Under current Idaho State Police procedures, the subject is to be monitored for at least 15 minutes immediately before evidentiary breath testing.

The purpose is not ceremonial.

One of the primary concerns in breath testing is mouth alcohol.

A breath-testing instrument is intended to analyze alcohol contained in exhaled breath. Alcohol that remains in or is introduced into the mouth can potentially affect a breath measurement.

The monitoring period provides an opportunity for residual alcohol to dissipate and allows the operator to identify events that could introduce alcohol into the breath pathway.

Before the monitoring period begins, loose material that could enter the instrument or create a choking hazard—such as gum, food, or chewing tobacco—should generally be removed.

Does the Officer Have to Stare at the Driver for 15 Minutes?

Not necessarily.

This issue has generated substantial Idaho litigation.

Idaho courts have repeatedly recognized that monitoring does not necessarily require an officer to stare continuously at the subject without looking away.

The practical question has traditionally been whether the officer's monitoring was sufficient to reasonably accomplish the purpose of the requirement.

Current Idaho rules distinguish between a monitoring period and a more restrictive observation requirement. In ordinary two-sample testing, the monitoring period includes a mandatory deprivation component and a discretionary observation component. If only a single numeric breath result is used, the observation component becomes mandatory.

That distinction is important when reviewing older cases or older descriptions of Idaho's “15-minute observation rule.”

The current procedure is more nuanced than simply asking whether the officer maintained uninterrupted eye contact for 15 minutes.

What Happens if the Person Vomits or Regurgitates?

Current ISP procedures specifically address this issue.

If, during the monitoring period, a person vomits or regurgitates stomach contents into the breath pathway, the 15-minute monitoring period should begin again.

Likewise, if the instrument indicates mouth alcohol or the officer suspects that mouth alcohol may have affected the testing process, the procedures provide for additional monitoring and testing depending upon the circumstances.

This is one area where body-camera footage can be particularly useful.

The video may show exactly what happened during the monitoring period, what the driver said, what the officer observed, and whether the testing sequence was restarted.

What About Burping, Belching, Acid Reflux, or GERD?

These issues require a more careful analysis than simply saying that any burp invalidates a breath test.

Older Idaho cases and training materials frequently discussed burping and belching as potential sources of mouth alcohol.

Current procedures focus more precisely on whether mouth alcohol or contamination was actually suspected or indicated and whether an event introduced stomach material into the breath pathway.

A claimed reflux condition, belch, or similar event does not automatically invalidate a breath test.

The useful questions are:

  • What actually happened?

  • Did the officer observe it?

  • Did the driver report it?

  • Did the instrument indicate possible mouth alcohol?

  • Did the samples correlate?

  • Was additional testing performed?

  • Was the monitoring period restarted when required?

  • What does the video show?

Those facts are more important than applying a broad rule that every digestive event either does or does not invalidate the result.

Why Does Idaho Normally Require Two Breath Samples?

Under Idaho's current breath-testing rules, a complete breath alcohol test ordinarily includes two valid breath results.

Each valid breath sample is preceded by an air blank.

For portable instruments, the two valid samples are generally taken at least approximately two minutes apart.

There is a reason for collecting more than one sample.

Two samples provide information about whether the person is supplying reasonably consistent breath specimens and whether factors such as mouth alcohol, environmental contamination, or radio-frequency interference may be contributing to the results.

The second sample therefore serves a quality-control function that a single number cannot provide in the same way.

What Is an Air Blank?

An air blank is a test of the surrounding environmental air before an evidentiary breath sample.

Idaho State Police defines a passing air blank as demonstrating that the immediate environment and the instrument are free from external alcohol contamination that could interfere with the testing process.

A complete breath-testing sequence may therefore include more than simply:

Blow once. Blow again. Get two numbers.

The instrument may perform air blanks, internal checks, performance verification, and other steps depending upon the instrument and mode of testing.

The test printout can help show what actually occurred.

What Does It Mean for Breath Samples to “Correlate”?

Idaho's current procedures provide that valid breath sample results should generally correlate within .020 g/210L.

For example, results of:

.112 and .118

are within .020 of one another.

The correlation requirement serves several purposes. According to ISP's procedures, appropriately correlating samples support the conclusion that:

  • The samples were delivered consistently;

  • Mouth alcohol was not materially contributing to the result; and

  • Radio-frequency interference was not contributing to the result.

Correlation does not prove that the result is infallible.

It is one of the quality-control features built into the testing procedure.

What Happens if the Two Results Differ by More Than .020?

The test does not automatically become invalid.

Current Idaho rules provide that additional breath samples should be collected, when possible, if the first two valid results differ by more than .020.

What happens next depends upon the circumstances.

If mouth alcohol is suspected or indicated and the valid samples remain outside the expected correlation, the operator may be required to begin another monitoring period and retest the person or obtain a blood sample instead.

If the officer believes the variation resulted from inconsistent sample delivery by the subject rather than mouth alcohol or an instrument problem, the analysis may be different.

For that reason, simply seeing two breath numbers more than .020 apart does not answer the legal question.

The testing sequence, additional samples, instrument messages, officer observations, and ISP procedures all need to be examined.

Can a Single Breath Sample Be Used?

Yes, in some circumstances.

This is another area where broad statements can be misleading.

Although a complete breath test ordinarily contains two valid breath results, Idaho's current rules provide that a single adequate breath result may still be considered a valid test when the subject fails, refuses, or is unable to provide the requested additional adequate samples, provided the applicable requirements are satisfied.

When only one numeric sample is relied upon, the stricter observation component of the monitoring period becomes mandatory.

The reason for the missing second sample also matters.

If the absence of additional samples was caused by instrument failure or an operator problem rather than the subject, the analysis may be very different.

A single-sample case therefore deserves careful attention to the video, test printout, officer's explanation, and applicable testing procedure.

An “Insufficient Sample” Is Not the Same as a Numeric Breath Result

Breath instruments require the subject to provide a sufficient breath sample.

Sometimes the instrument reports that a sample was deficient or insufficient.

Under ISP procedures, an insufficient attempt does not itself produce a valid quantitative alcohol result.

That does not necessarily invalidate the entire testing process.

The operator may repeat the sequence or collect additional samples.

The important issues include why the sample was insufficient, what instructions the officer gave, whether the person was physically able to provide an adequate sample, whether additional attempts were made, and whether the eventual results satisfied Idaho's testing requirements.

Mouth Alcohol

Mouth alcohol is one of the central issues addressed by Idaho's breath-testing procedures.

The concern is straightforward.

The breath instrument is intended to measure alcohol in an exhaled breath sample. Alcohol physically present in the mouth can potentially produce a result that does not accurately reflect the intended breath measurement.

Possible sources of concern can include recently consumed alcohol, regurgitated stomach contents, or other alcohol-containing material in the breath pathway.

Idaho's testing safeguards—including the monitoring period, spacing between samples, air blanks, instrument detection features, and sample correlation—are intended in part to reduce or identify that risk.

When mouth alcohol becomes a genuine issue in a case, the question should not be resolved simply by speculation.

The actual test data and testing circumstances should be reviewed.

Dentures, Bridges, and Dental Work

People sometimes assume that dentures, bridges, partial plates, or mouth jewelry automatically invalidate a breath test.

Idaho's current procedure says otherwise.

False teeth, partial plates, mouth jewelry, bridges, and comparable dental work do not have to be removed simply to obtain a valid evidentiary breath test.

The presence of dental work therefore does not create an automatic breath-test defense.

If a specific circumstance involving dental work is alleged to have trapped or introduced alcohol, that issue would need to be evaluated based upon the actual facts rather than the mere existence of dentures or other dental appliances.

Instrument Certification

An evidentiary breath test is not simply a measurement from any commercially available breath device.

The individual instrument must be approved and certified for evidentiary use under Idaho's alcohol-testing program.

ISP Forensic Services maintains records concerning approved instruments and instrument certification.

In a breath-test case, the instrument's certification status can be checked using the identifying information associated with the test.

This is different from asking whether the operator was certified.

Both matter:

  • Was the instrument approved and certified?

  • Was the operator currently certified to use it?

Performance Verification

Breath instruments are also subjected to performance-verification testing using standards with known target values.

The purpose is to determine whether the instrument is producing results within the acceptable range when challenged with a known alcohol standard.

The exact requirement depends upon the instrument.

Portable Instruments

For the Lifeloc FC20 series, Idaho's current procedure requires a qualifying performance verification within 24 hours before or after an evidentiary breath test.

The performance check uses an approved standard with a known target value.

Acceptable performance-verification results are generally required to fall within the established tolerance of the standard.

Dräger 9510

The Dräger 9510 operates differently.

Current ISP procedures provide for a performance verification as part of each evidentiary breath-testing sequence using the benchtop instrument.

If the performance-verification result is outside the acceptable range, the instrument's automated sequence is designed to abort before breath samples are obtained.

This is another reason why it is important to identify the actual instrument used rather than discussing all Idaho breath tests as though they are performed identically.

What Is the Difference Between Calibration and Performance Verification?

These terms are sometimes used interchangeably in ordinary conversation, but they are not the same thing.

Calibration involves establishing or adjusting the relationship between the instrument's measurement and known reference values.

Performance verification checks whether the instrument is functioning within acceptable limits when tested against a known standard.

An instrument can therefore have records concerning certification, calibration, performance verification, maintenance, and repairs.

A meaningful breath-test review should identify which records actually apply to the instrument and testing date rather than simply asking whether the machine was “calibrated.”

Can a Breath Machine Be Wrong?

Breath-testing instruments are designed to produce reliable evidentiary results when they are properly functioning and used according to the applicable procedures.

That does not mean the number is legally immune from challenge.

Idaho appellate courts have recognized that a defendant may challenge the accuracy and reliability of the specific instrument or specific test result involved in the case.

Potential issues may include:

  • Instrument certification;

  • Operator certification;

  • Performance-verification records;

  • Maintenance or repair history;

  • Testing-sequence errors;

  • Mouth-alcohol concerns;

  • Sample correlation;

  • Insufficient samples;

  • Deviations from required procedures;

  • Instrument messages or error codes; and

  • Other evidence suggesting that the particular test may not accurately reflect the person's breath alcohol concentration.

There is an important distinction between challenging breath testing in general and challenging the particular breath test administered in a particular case.

The second type of analysis is usually much more useful.

Does Every Departure From the ISP Procedure Make the Test Inadmissible?

No.

Idaho State Police's own breath-testing procedure recognizes that failure to follow every recommendation does not automatically disqualify a breath test.

A deviation may instead raise a question about foundation, reliability, or the significance of the departure.

The effect depends upon the particular requirement and the particular facts.

A minor departure that could not reasonably affect the result is different from a significant problem involving the monitoring period, sample correlation, operator certification, instrument verification, or another safeguard directly related to the reliability of the result.

It is therefore usually inaccurate to say:

“The officer made one mistake, so the breath test must be thrown out.”

The better analysis is:

“What rule or procedure applied, what happened instead, and what effect could that difference have had on this particular test?”

The Breath-Test Printout

The breath-test printout can be one of the most useful documents in the case.

Depending upon the instrument, it may show information such as:

  • The instrument used;

  • Date and time;

  • Air blanks;

  • Breath sample results;

  • Performance-verification information;

  • Testing intervals;

  • Error messages;

  • Insufficient samples;

  • Additional testing sequences; and

  • Other instrument-generated information.

The printout should be compared with the police report and video.

If the officer describes two clean, uncomplicated breath samples but the printout shows several failed attempts, repeated sequences, or other irregularities, those circumstances may deserve closer examination.

Conversely, a normal testing record may strongly support the State's evidence.

Instrument Records and Maintenance History

A thorough breath-test review may involve more than the test printout.

Depending upon the issues in the case, relevant records can include:

  • Instrument certification records;

  • Performance-verification records;

  • Calibration records;

  • Maintenance logs;

  • Repair records;

  • Instrument operation logs;

  • Approved-standard records;

  • Certificates of analysis for verification standards;

  • Operator certification;

  • Breath Testing Specialist records; and

  • Other quality-control information.

Idaho State Police Forensic Services maintains a substantial amount of breath-testing data and certification information.

The existence of records does not mean that every breath-test case requires an exhaustive forensic attack on the instrument.

The scope of the review should be driven by what the evidence actually shows.

The Importance of Body-Worn Camera Footage

Body-camera footage can be particularly useful in breath-test cases because it often captures the parts of the process that are not fully reflected in the instrument printout.

Video may show:

  • When the monitoring period actually began;

  • Whether the driver had gum, food, tobacco, or another object in the mouth;

  • Whether the driver vomited or regurgitated;

  • Whether the driver reported reflux or another concern;

  • Whether the officer left the area;

  • What instructions the driver received;

  • Whether the driver appeared to be trying to provide samples;

  • How many attempts occurred;

  • Whether the officer accused the driver of refusing;

  • Whether equipment problems occurred; and

  • What happened between breath samples.

Sometimes the instrument records and video tell exactly the same story.

Sometimes they do not.

Both should be reviewed.

What if the Driver Cannot Provide Enough Breath?

Not every insufficient sample is an intentional refusal.

A person may have difficulty providing a breath sample because of:

  • Asthma;

  • COPD or other respiratory disease;

  • Reduced lung capacity;

  • Recent illness;

  • Age;

  • Physical injury;

  • Anxiety;

  • Difficulty understanding the instructions; or

  • Other circumstances.

That does not mean every person who claims breathing difficulty was physically unable to complete the test.

The issue is factual.

Relevant evidence can include medical history, the driver's statements, body-camera footage, the officer's instructions, the instrument data, and whether the person successfully produced other breath samples.

If police characterize the failure to provide an adequate sample as a refusal, that distinction can become particularly important because refusal carries consequences beyond an ordinary failed test.

What Happens if the Breath Result Is .08 or Higher?

A breath result at or above Idaho's applicable per se limit may support the criminal DUI charge.

For a typical adult noncommercial driver, Idaho Code § 18-8004 establishes a per se alcohol concentration of .08.

A qualifying failed evidentiary test also triggers Idaho's separate administrative license suspension process.

That administrative proceeding is separate from the criminal court case.

A person served with an administrative suspension notice has a short deadline—generally seven days—to request a hearing.

Failing to address the administrative case can therefore result in driver's license consequences even while the criminal DUI case is still pending.

What Is an Administrative License Suspension?

Idaho Code § 18-8002A creates a driver's license suspension process for drivers who submit to evidentiary testing and fail.

For a first failed evidentiary test, the statute currently provides for a 90-day suspension, with the possibility of requesting restricted noncommercial privileges after the first 30 days if the statutory requirements are satisfied.

A second failed evidentiary test within the statutory lookback period can result in a substantially longer suspension.

The administrative suspension is separate from any driver's license consequence that may later result from a criminal DUI conviction.

The administrative hearing also has its own deadlines, issues, and burden of proof.

For that reason, a breath-test DUI case may involve two proceedings moving forward at the same time.

What if the Breath Result Is .20 or Higher?

A result of .20 or greater can significantly change the case.

Idaho Code § 18-8004C provides enhanced penalties for an excessive alcohol concentration.

A first excessive DUI is still classified as a misdemeanor, but it carries greater mandatory minimum penalties than an ordinary first-offense DUI.

Because .20 is an important statutory threshold, a breath result at or near that number deserves careful review.

The difference between a test result below .20 and one at or above .20 may affect the level of charge and potential penalties.

Current ISP procedures also include specific performance-verification provisions intended to support testing in cases involving the .20 excessive-DUI threshold.

What if One Breath Sample Is Below the Legal Limit?

This can present an important legal issue.

Idaho law has addressed cases involving multiple breath samples where one result fell below the applicable statutory limit.

The significance can depend upon the number of samples, the timing of the samples, which testing sequence is being relied upon, and the particular statutory theory of prosecution.

This is not an area where a simple rule should be applied without examining the complete testing history.

If a breath test includes results on opposite sides of an important statutory threshold—whether .08 or .20—the complete sequence and applicable Idaho case law should be reviewed carefully.

Does the State Have to Calculate What the BAC Was at the Time of Driving?

Not necessarily.

Idaho appellate courts have held that the State is not generally required to perform a mathematical retrograde extrapolation of an otherwise admissible evidentiary alcohol test back to the exact time the person was driving in order to prosecute a per se DUI.

The amount of time between driving and testing may still be relevant to the weight and interpretation of the evidence.

That distinction matters.

The absence of a retrograde calculation does not automatically make the breath result inadmissible, but timing can still become part of the defense analysis depending upon the circumstances.

Can the Driver Obtain an Independent Test?

Yes.

After submitting to evidentiary testing requested by law enforcement, Idaho law provides that the person may, when practicable and at their own expense, obtain additional testing from a person of their own choosing.

This right can be important because alcohol evidence changes with time.

Idaho courts have recognized both the statutory right to independent testing and a broader due-process interest in obtaining evidence that may rebut the State's case.

The driver must communicate the request clearly.

Law enforcement is not ordinarily required to guess that a person wants an independent test based upon vague or passing comments.

If an independent test is clearly requested and law enforcement improperly denies the opportunity to obtain it, significant legal issues may result.

Can Police Request Blood Testing After a Breath Test?

Yes, in some circumstances.

Idaho law provides that a person who submits to a breath test may also be asked to provide a blood or urine sample when the officer has the legally required basis to believe the person may be under the influence of drugs or another intoxicating substance, or a combination of alcohol and drugs.

This frequently becomes relevant when the person's apparent impairment does not seem consistent with the breath alcohol result.

For example, an officer investigating suspected drug impairment may obtain a relatively low alcohol result but continue the investigation based upon other observations.

Breath testing therefore does not necessarily end every DUI investigation.

What Evidence Should Be Reviewed in an Idaho Breath-Test Case?

The answer depends on the case, but a meaningful review may include:

  • The traffic-stop video;

  • Body-worn camera footage;

  • Police reports;

  • Field sobriety test evidence;

  • The Idaho implied-consent advisory;

  • The breath-test printout;

  • All breath sample results, not simply the number listed in the citation;

  • Air blanks;

  • Failed or insufficient samples;

  • Instrument identification;

  • Instrument certification;

  • Operator certification;

  • Performance-verification data;

  • Calibration information;

  • Instrument maintenance and repair history;

  • Testing standards and certificates of analysis;

  • The timing of the 15-minute monitoring period;

  • Evidence of vomiting, regurgitation, or possible mouth alcohol;

  • Sample correlation;

  • The timing between driving, arrest, and testing;

  • Administrative license suspension documents;

  • Any request for independent testing; and

  • Any later blood or urine testing.

Not every item will matter in every case.

The point is to determine whether the breath result is supported by the complete testing record rather than treating the number as self-explanatory.

Common Misconceptions About Idaho Breath Tests

“If the officer didn't watch me every second for 15 minutes, the breath test is automatically invalid.”

No.

Current Idaho law and testing procedures are more nuanced. The adequacy of monitoring depends upon the applicable procedural requirements and the circumstances. A mandatory observation component applies in certain single-sample situations.

“If I burped once, the test has to be thrown out.”

No.

The relevant issue is whether mouth alcohol or contamination may have affected the testing and what the operator and instrument showed.

“The officer only got one number, so the test is automatically invalid.”

No.

Idaho ordinarily uses two valid breath results for a complete test, but current rules allow a single adequate result to be treated as valid in specified circumstances.

“If the two numbers aren't identical, the machine is wrong.”

No.

The results are not expected to be identical. Idaho generally looks for valid results to correlate within .020.

“If the breath machine was calibrated sometime in the past, there is nothing to challenge.”

Not necessarily.

Calibration is only one part of the analysis. Certification, performance verification, operator status, maintenance, testing procedure, sample data, and the particular circumstances of the test may all be relevant.

“A breath test over .08 automatically means there is no defense.”

No.

A qualifying breath result can be powerful evidence, but it still needs to be evaluated in the context of the instrument, testing procedure, statutory requirements, video, and other evidence.

“If the breath result is excluded, the DUI automatically disappears.”

Not necessarily.

Idaho law permits a DUI prosecution based on other competent evidence in some circumstances. The consequences of excluding or undermining a breath test depend upon the remaining evidence and the theory of the prosecution.

How Long Law Office Reviews Evidentiary Breath Testing

A breath-test case should not be evaluated simply by looking at the number printed on the citation.

When breath testing is important to an Idaho DUI case, Long Law Office reviews the testing process as part of the entire investigation.

That may include determining which instrument was used, verifying operator and instrument certification, examining the 15-minute monitoring period, reviewing all breath samples and testing sequences, checking sample correlation, reviewing performance-verification records, and comparing the instrument records with the officer's reports and body-camera footage.

The analysis also considers the practical circumstances surrounding the test.

Did something occur during the monitoring period? Were there repeated insufficient samples? Did the officer characterize an inability to provide a sample as a refusal? Were the two results unusually different? Did the instrument produce error messages? Was the result near an important statutory threshold such as .08 or .20? Did the driver request an independent test?

Sometimes a detailed review confirms that the evidentiary breath test was administered appropriately and that the testing records strongly support the result.

In other cases, the records or video raise questions that are not apparent from the police report alone.

The purpose of the review is not to assume that every breath test is wrong. It is to determine whether the particular breath test in the particular case can withstand careful scrutiny before decisions are made about how the case should be handled.

Related Idaho DUI Resources

Breath testing is only one part of an Idaho DUI case. Depending upon the circumstances, other issues may involve roadside testing, refusal proceedings, driver's license consequences, prior convictions, or blood testing.

For additional information, see:

Discuss an Idaho Breath-Test DUI With Long Law Office

An evidentiary breath test can be one of the strongest pieces of evidence in an Idaho DUI case, but the number should be evaluated together with the testing procedure and the rest of the evidence.

If you have been arrested for DUI in Boise or elsewhere in southwest Idaho, Attorney Cody Long personally reviews the available evidence and works directly with clients to identify the legal and factual issues that may affect their case.

To discuss an Idaho DUI case involving breath testing, contact Long Law Office at (208) 287-3303.