Erroneous interval: the time of the sobriety check does not affect the verdict
Failure to comply with the intervals established by the rules of medical examination between the driver's sobriety checks is not a reason for invalidating the results of these studies. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation came to this conclusion and deprived the driver of his license. Experts and lawyers are ambivalent about this decision. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.
Three times higher than the norm
In July last year, in the Omsk region, traffic police officers stopped Ifanov's driver (last name changed) and, when checking his documents, suspected him of driving while intoxicated. The driver refused to be checked for sobriety on the spot, so he was sent to a drug dispensary for a medical examination. Analyses conducted at the medical facility showed that the legally prescribed threshold of 0.16 mg of ethyl alcohol per liter of exhaled air was exceeded by more than three times: the breathalyzer recorded 0.5 mg/l in the motorist. As a result, the magistrate's court deprived the driver of his license for a year and a half and fined him 30 thousand rubles.
As required by the procedure for medical examination provided for by law, the motorist passed a breathalyzer test twice. And in both cases, the device recorded the same result. However, the doctors did not observe the time interval established between these studies: according to the order of the Ministry of Health in force at that time, these tests should be performed with a difference of 15-20 minutes (from September 1, 2025, this interval is 15-25 minutes). On this basis, the driver appealed to the Omsk district courts, and then to the eighth Court of Cassation of general jurisdiction, demanding that the results of the medical examination be declared illegal and the verdict of the justice of the peace based on them be overturned. However, both instances upheld the previous decision, so the driver filed a complaint with the Supreme Court.
"Does not question"
Having reviewed the case materials, the Supreme Court (SC RF) also found no legal grounds to satisfy the complaint. Repeated examination of exhaled air during a medical examination does not affect the correctness of the study itself and is aimed at eliminating the possibility of challenging the study on formal grounds (adsorbed alcohol), the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted.
"The fact that the repeated examination was conducted with a failure to observe the interval between the first and repeated exhaled air examinations for less than 15-20 minutes, as established by paragraph 11 of the above Procedure (Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation dated December 18, 2015 No. 933n. — Izvestia), taking into account the invariability of quantitative indicators identified during the studies significantly exceeding the permissible concentration do not cast doubt on the results of research and conclusions about Ifanov's state of intoxication, and therefore in this case it is not a significant violation, entailing the recognition of the act of medical examination for intoxication as unacceptable evidence," the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation says.
As a result, the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the driver's complaint and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Law and expediency
Experts and lawyers interviewed by Izvestia ambiguously assess the decision of the Supreme Court. In this case, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was guided primarily by the so-called judicial expediency, said Sergei Radko, a lawyer for the Freedom of Choice movement.
— Formally, non-compliance with the prescribed interval between air sampling for intoxication analysis is certainly a violation. But since in this case we are talking about a significant excess of the threshold value recorded during both the first and repeated alcohol testing, in fact, this violation did not affect the results of the study in any way. It is not clear from the case file exactly how much the established time interval was not observed. However, it is obvious that with a reading of 0.5 mg/l, the driver would not have been able to sober up in either half an hour or an hour to meet the acceptable level," Sergei Radko told Izvestia.
Such a violation of the prescribed procedure could be significant if it were a question of breathalyzer readings close to the threshold value of 0.16 mg/l, for example, if the result was 0.161–0.165 mg/l, the lawyer noted. In this case, a reduction or, conversely, an increase, even by a few minutes, of the established interval between tests, could affect the final result of the medical examination, the lawyer emphasized.
Igor Morzharetto, a member of the Presidium of the Public Council under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, holds a different point of view. Even though this violation is formal, it is still a violation of the established procedure, he emphasizes.
— Of course, drunkenness at the wheel is unacceptable and those who allow themselves to drive drunk should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. But it is necessary to bring such drivers to justice with strict and strict observance of all norms and requirements of the law, " he told Izvestia.
The Supreme Court's decision is controversial, says Maxim Kadakov, editor—in-chief of Za Rulem magazine. In this case, it is justified because it did not allow the drunk driver to avoid responsibility, he believes. However, such an assumption should by no means become an established practice, the editor-in-chief of Behind the Wheel emphasized.
— It is clear that in a situation where we are talking about a serious degree of intoxication, a few minutes will have no effect on the result of the examination — here the Supreme Court is absolutely right, recognizing in this particular case the violations committed as insignificant. But in another situation, when it comes to readings close to 0.16 ppm, such assumptions are absolutely unacceptable," Maxim Kadakov believes.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
