Idaho Code § 18-8004

Section 18-8004(2) permits proof of driving under the influence through other competent evidence when no alcohol concentration test was taken.

State v. Tupis · filed 1987-04-01(2)

Any person who does not take a test to determine alcohol concentration may be prosecuted for driving or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, or any other intoxicating substances, on other competent evidence. ... As worded by the trial court, the instruction is consistent with I.C. § 18-8004(2) and accurately reflects Idaho law.

Section 18-8004 requires proof that alcohol impaired the defendant’s ability to drive, but does not require proof that the defendant could not drive safely or prudently or that impairment reached a specified degree.

State v. Andrus · filed 1990-03-21

It is not necessary to prove that the defendant could not drive safely or prudently; it is sufficient to prove only that his ability to drive was impaired by the influence of alcohol. Further, it is not necessary that the state prove impairment to any specified degree.

Section 18-8004 can be violated by a moderate drinker if alcohol perceptibly impairs the person's ability to drive.

State v. Bailey · filed 1990-05-02

However, a defendant need not drink excessively to be convicted of driving under the influence. He need only be shown to have consumed alcohol, which perceptibly impaired his ability to drive.

Section 18-8004 requires driving or actual physical control of a car while under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating substance.

State v. Zubizareta · filed 1992-09-14

As described in the statute and stated in the charges filed against Zubizareta, the elements of felony driving under the influence are limited to whether Zubizareta drove or was in actual physical control of his car, while under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substances, in Ada County, Idaho, and that he had pled or been found guilty of at least two violations of I.C. § 18-8004 within the previous five years.

Section 18-8004 requires proof that alcohol affected the driver's ability to drive, without proof of a particular degree of intoxication.

State v. Gleason · filed 1992-12-22

The proper jury instruction for the crime of driving under the influence can be found in State v. Glanzman, 69 Idaho 46, 202 P.2d 407 (1949). In Glanzman, this Court held that the driver need not be shown to have been in any particular degree or state of intoxication, but only to have consumed intoxicating liquor to such extent as to influence or affect his ability to drive.

Section 18-8004 does not require proof of a particular degree of intoxication; for driving under the influence, the State must show that alcohol or drugs affected the defendant’s driving.

State v. Lewis · filed 1994-09-22(1)(a)

To constitute the crime of operating or controlling a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicating substances, it is not necessary that any particular degree or state of intoxication be shown. The State need only show that the defendant had consumed sufficient intoxicating beverage, or ingested sufficient drugs, to influence or affect his driving. ... The instruction in this case is readily distinguishable from the improper instructions given in Andrus and adequately informs the jury on the meaning of the phrase driving under the influence. Consequently, we hold that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury.

Section 18-8004 prohibits driving under the influence of drugs; an admission of driving under the influence of marijuana establishes a violation.

State v. Gardner · filed 1994-11-21

He acknowledged he was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident, and this admission is sufficient to establish that he violated I.C. § 18-8004 by driving under the influence of drugs, but that is not the offense with which he was charged or to which he pleaded guilty.

Section 18-8004 makes a breath alcohol concentration above .08 percent a per se violation regardless of blood alcohol content, so evidence that the standard partition ratio varies among individuals is irrelevant.

State v. Hardesty · filed 2002-01-10(1)(a)

Under I.C. § 18-8004, Hardesty’s proffered evidence of the variability of the standard 2100:1 partition ratio is irrelevant because a breath alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit of .08 percent is a per se violation of the statute regardless of blood alcohol content. Therefore, we hold that the magistrate erred by granting Hardesty’s motion to introduce evidence regarding the variability of the standard partition ratio because such evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible.

Section 18-8004 defines one DUI offense that may be proved by impairment or by an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

State v. Ferreira · filed 1999-11-15(1)(a)

Thus, I.C. § 18-8004 provides for one crime, with two alternative methods of proof.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) permits proof of driving under the influence through alcohol testing or direct or circumstantial evidence that alcohol impaired the driver’s ability to drive.

United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Pair (In Re Pair) · filed 2001-07-13(1)(a)

These two theories of proof are: (1) forensic testing of the driver’s breath, blood or urine to show the blood alcohol content (BAC); or (2) direct or circumstantial evidence of impairment of ability to drive due to the influence of alcohol.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) permits a DUI conviction based on proof that a person with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 drove or actually controlled a motor vehicle on a road or property open to the public.

State v. Roth · filed 2003-05-05(1)(a)

To establish a DUI offense, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Roth had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, and drove or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within Blaine County upon a highway, street or bridge, or upon public or private property open to the public.

Section 18-8004 requires proof that the person was driving or in physical control of a vehicle in a DUI prosecution.

State v. Ambro · filed 2005-10-28

When prosecuting crimes such as leaving the scene of an accident or DUI, the state must prove that the person was driving or in physical control of a vehicle.

Section 18-8004 allows a driving-under-the-influence violation to be proved either by evidence of impaired driving or by test results exceeding the statutory alcohol limit.

Thompson v. State · filed 2003-03-05

A violation of I.C. § 18-8004, which prohibits driving under the influence, may be proved in either of two ways — by direct and circumstantial evidence that use of alcohol has impaired the vehicle operator’s ability to drive or, alternatively, by test results showing that the alcohol concentration in the operator’s blood, breath or urine exceeded the statutory limit.

Section 18-8004(1) permits a DUI charge based either on an alcohol concentration above .08 or on alcohol causing actual impairment of the ability to drive; when breath test results are excluded, the State is limited to the impairment form.

State v. Davis · filed 2003-12-05(1)

With the breath test results having been excluded, the State was precluded from trying Davis for per se DUI for driving with an alcohol concentration in excess of .08, and was limited to proving the alternative form of DUI, driving while under the influence of alcohol to a degree that there was actual impairment of the ability to drive.

In an impairment prosecution under § 18-8004(1)(a), numerical blood alcohol test results require evidence connecting the results to the time of driving and to the driver's impairment.

State v. Robinett · filed 2005-01-28(1)(a)

We hold today that a numerical BAC test result is relevant to a prosecution for driving under the influence (as opposed to a per se violation) only if a proper foundation is laid to assure the validity of the test result, including evidence extrapolating the result back to the time of the alleged offense. ... This requires there be evidence connecting the test result to the time of the alleged offense and evidence showing how the numerical result relates to the issue of impairment.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) is violated when alcohol or drugs influence or affect a person’s driving.

State v. Oliver · filed 2007-10-17(1)(a)

Thus, the issue is whether the jury was presented with substantial, competent evidence showing that Oliver had consumed sufficient alcohol and/or drugs to influence or affect his driving of his motor vehicle. It clearly was.

Under section 18-8004, a person is under the influence of alcohol when driving ability is noticeably impaired to the slightest degree.

State v. Schmoll · filed 2007-11-07(1)(a)

Proving that a person is under the influence absent a BAC test requires a greater degree of impairment in Montana than in Idaho, since in Idaho, the ability to drive need only be impaired “to the slightest degree,” while in Montana, the ability to drive “safely” is the quality that must be diminished.

Section 18-8004 requires proof, under an alcohol intoxication theory, that the driver consumed enough alcohol to influence or affect driving.

State v. Gross · filed 2008-07-15

The state charged Gross with DUI in violation of I.C. § 18-8004 and proceeded on a theory of alcohol intoxication. The state was required to prove that Gross had consumed sufficient alcohol to influence or affect his driving of the motor vehicle.

Section 18-8004 does not require proof of the quantity or concentration of drugs in a driver’s system to establish drug impairment.

Feasel v. Idaho Transportation Department · filed 2009-10-15

Contrary to the district court’s interpretation, neither I.C. § 18-8002A(4) nor I.C. § 18-8004 requires that the state show the quantity or concentration of drugs in a driver’s system and that such a quantity would cause impairment.

Without chemical test results, § 18-8004 requires evidence of physical impairment; proof of drinking alone is insufficient.

Wood v. Loader (In Re Loader) · filed 2009-09-28(2)

Absent chemical test results to show Loader exceeded the statutory blood alcohol limits, Wood must show that Loader was physically impaired. While this is a close call, and although she has clearly shown that Loader consumed several drinks on the day of the accident, the evidence is insufficient to persuade the Court that, more probably than not, Loader was discernibly impaired due to his alcoholic consumption.

Section 18-8004 permits proof of intoxication through a blood alcohol concentration above the statutory limit or through evidence that alcohol impaired the person’s ability to drive; the latter requires both alcohol consumption and discernible driving impairment.

Wood v. Loader (In Re Loader) · filed 2009-12-10

Plaintiff may prove intoxication under Idaho Code § 18-8004 in either of two ways. The first option is through forensic evidence that Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory percentage. ... Alternatively, Plaintiff may show, through either direct or circumstantial evidence, the impairment of ability to drive due to the influence of alcohol. ... Under this method, Plaintiff must show both evidence of consumption of alcohol and “some dis-eernable impairment related to the motorist’s ability to drive.”

Section 18-8004(2) does not bar DUI prosecution when a test result below 0.08 is demonstrably inaccurate or unreliable.

State v. Turbyfill · filed 2012-09-28(2)

In our view, Section 18-8004(2) does not prohibit prosecution where the test result of less than .08 was demonstrably inaccurate or unreliable.

Section 18-8004 requires alcohol or drugs to affect a person’s ability to drive and is sufficiently similar to Montana’s DUI statute to support felony enhancement there.

State v. Young · filed 2012-11-07(1)(a)

Both require more than just drinking and driving; they require the consumption of alcohol or drugs to affect a person’s ability to drive.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) requires evidence that alcohol, drugs, or another intoxicating substance caused the driver’s impairment; impairment alone is insufficient.

State v. Geirrod Detloph Stark · filed 2013-04-04(1)(a)

The State must also present evidence, besides the impairment itself, to prove that the impairment was caused by alcohol, drugs, or intoxicating substances.

For a per se DUI violation, section 18-8004(1)(a) looks to alcohol concentration at the time of testing after driving or actual physical control.

State v. Juarez · filed 2013-11-12(1)(a)

In this sense, Idaho’s statute largely mirrors the substantive essence of Nevada Revised Statutes § 484.379(1)(c); Idaho’s statute also provides that it is the person’s alcohol concentration at the time of the test, taken after driving or being in actual physical control, that comprises a prima facie violation.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) establishes an alcohol concentration violation even when a driver shows little observable impairment.

State v. Hunter · filed 2014-05-06(1)(a)

This is especially true because I.C. § 18-8004(1)(a) establishes a per se alcohol concentration violation. An individual who has become more tolerant to alcohol may not exhibit the same observable functional impairment at the per se legal limit as others.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) makes general attacks on the validity of blood testing irrelevant to a per se DUI charge when the blood test yields a result above the statutory limit.

State v. Nichols · filed 2015-11-10(1)(a)

This information does not relate to whether an individual violated the per se DUI offense, which simply requires that the blood test yielded a result above the per se limit. Therefore, evidence generally attacking the validity of blood testing is irrelevant and inadmissible.

Section 18-8004(2) requires expert testimony linking the administration of a breath test to the unreliability of a below-limit result for the State to avoid dismissal.

State v. Luna · filed 2016-07-18(2)

Where the results involve both the reliability and unreliability of the same BAC testing procedure on the same device, the State must produce an expert witness to explain the circumstances under which specific results are reliable while others are not.

Breath-test results may be admitted despite noncompliance with administrative procedures if expert testimony establishes that the results reliably show alcohol concentration above the legal limit.

State v. Longhofer · filed 2017-06-29(4)

Second, even without fulfilling the administrative procedures, the State may still make the test results admissible if it calls an expert witness to establish the reliability of the test.

Section 18-8004’s driving-under-the-influence element is adequately explained by the pattern instruction on degree of intoxication; the instruction need not include the words “noticeable” or “perceptible.”

State v. Jeske · filed 2018-03-06

In State v. Lewis, 126 Idaho 282, 285, 882 P.2d 449, 452 (Ct. App. 1994), this Court held that the pattern instruction on degree of intoxication (ICJI 1006) adequately informs the jury on the meaning of the phrase driving under the influence, and the words “noticeable” or “perceptible” are not required to be included in the instruction. The district court did not err when it refused to give Jeske’s modified pattern jury instruction.

Under Section 18-8004(1)(a), a qualifying alcohol test can establish a per se DUI violation, but a defendant may present contrary evidence about their alcohol concentration while driving.

State v. Austin · filed 2018-03-06(1)(a)

The test result, however, does not act to remove the violation’s nexus to driving, nor does it mandate an unassailable conclusion not open to defense. The Tomlinson decision erroneously extended the irrelevancy of a driver’s actual alcohol concentration while driving—not required in the State’s case-in-chief and not admissible as it relates to a machine’s margin of error—to deny a defendant’s right to present contrary evidence in his defense.

Submitting to or refusing a BAC test is not an element of DUI under section 18-8004.

Reagan v. Idaho Transportation Department · filed 2021-03-23

However, under Idaho Code section 18-8004, the act of submitting (or not) to a BAC test is not an element of the crime of driving under the influence; rather, it is the act of driving with a BAC in excess of the legal limit.

A defendant charged with a per se DUI violation may present rising BAC evidence by questioning the State’s disclosed expert without disclosing an expert of his own.

State v. Hollon · filed 2019-12-23(1)(a)

The State contends this is so because Hollon did not disclose an expert who could present exculpatory testimony regarding rising BAC. However, this argument overlooks that Hollon was not required to disclose his own expert in order to present such a defense. Rather, Hollon was entitled to inquire of the State’s previously disclosed expert on this point.

Circumstantial evidence can establish that a defendant drove while under the influence of alcohol even without direct testimony of intoxication at the time of driving.

State v. Scott · filed 2021-07-21

However, there is substantial circumstantial evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the State met its burden of proving Scott drove while under the influence of alcohol.

Section 18-8004 prohibits driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle in Idaho on a road or property open to the public while having an alcohol concentration of .08 or more.

State v. Nez · filed 2025-06-10

The Idaho DUI statute makes it unlawful to: (1) drive or be in actual physical control of the vehicle; (2) in the state; (3) upon a highway, street or bridge or upon public or private property open to the public; and (4) while having an alcohol concentration of .08 or more. I.C. § 18-8004.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) allows impairment related to driving ability to be proved through circumstantial evidence or observable symptoms of intoxication.

State v. Messman · filed 2025-04-30(1)(a)

The impairment could be established either by circumstantial evidence of impaired driving ability or other observable symptoms of intoxication.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) requires proof that alcohol, drugs, or another intoxicating substance caused the person’s driving impairment; officer testimony and surrounding evidence can establish that cause.

State v. Keefe · filed 2026-02-18(1)(a)

In addition to impairment, the State must present evidence to prove that the impairment was caused by alcohol, drugs, or an intoxicating substance. ... The evidence, including Officer Merz’s testimony and the presence of methamphetamine and paraphernalia, was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Keefe was guilty of DUI.

When DUI is charged under both per se and impairment theories, a BAC test result is relevant to the per se theory without extrapolation to the time of driving.

State v. Clapp · filed 2025-11-21

In this case, the State charged Clapp under both the per se and impairment theories, making the BAC test result relevant to the per se theory even without extrapolation.

Section 18-8004(2) does not bar prosecution when a later breath test shows a lower alcohol concentration than an earlier valid sample.

State v. Black · filed 2025-12-17(2)

Idaho Code § 18-8004(2) was not intended to preclude prosecution of an individual where testing conducted at a later time showed a lower BAC than a previous, valid sample.

Section 18-8004 includes motorcycles within “motor vehicle” and gives sufficient notice that being in physical control of a running motorcycle while intoxicated is prohibited.

State v. Carpenter · filed 1988-02-01

We hold that the term “motor vehicle” as used in I.C. § 18-8004 encompasses that means of transportation called a motorcycle. We also hold that I.C. § 18-8004 is not constitutionally defective for failure to precisely define the term “motor vehicle.” Carpenter was provided with sufficient warning that being in physical control of a running motorcycle is subject to the penalty of the law.

Section 18-8004(1) creates one DUI offense that may be committed by driving or exercising actual physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

State v. Cheney · filed 1989-06-29(1)

The language of the DUI statute states that it is unlawful to drive or to exercise actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances. The statute does not, as Cheney suggests, list these conditions separately, as if each were an offense distinct from the other. We believe that “driving” and being in “actual physical control” of a motor vehicle are alternative “circumstances” under which the crime of driving under the influence may be charged.

Section 18-8004(6) does not require proof that a person intended to drive to establish actual physical control of a vehicle.

State v. Woolf · filed 1991-05-17(6)

Such a position, however, would not be logical with respect to prosecutions under I.C. § 18-8004(6) in light of the identical definitions of "actual physical control" contained in I.C. § 18-8002(7) and I.C. § 18-8004(6). ... Consequently, applying the Court's observation in Vogt to the instant case, we hold that Woolf's intent whether to drive his vehicle is immaterial.

Section 18-8004(1) is violated when a person under the influence enters a vehicle, starts its motor, and drives away; the DUI offense is complete at that point.

State v. Castaneda · filed 1994-01-27(1)

When Castañeda entered his automobile, started the motor, and drove away he was "in actual physical control of a motor vehicle" while under the influence of alcohol in violation of I.C. § 18-8004(1). At that point, before the officer activated his vehicle's overhead lights, all of the acts necessary for a charge of driving under the influence were completed, while the offense of fleeing a police vehicle had not yet begun.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) covers intoxicated operation of a snowmobile on a public roadway, and the State may charge under it even though the snowmobile statute also applies.

State v. Barnes · filed 1999-08-24(1)(a)

Based on the doctrine of in pari materia, we hold that driving a snowmobile on a public roadway while intoxicated is covered by both I.C. § 18-8004 and I.C. § 67-7110(2), that there is no conflict and that the State had the discretion to prosecute Barnes under either statute.

Section 18-8004’s actual physical control prohibition does not apply when a vehicle is neither moving nor capable of easily being put in motion.

State v. Adams · filed 2005-01-26(1)

If a vehicle cannot be moved it is not a motor vehicle capable of being “controlled,” and the reason for the statutory prohibition does not exist. Consequently, the statute is not violated when the vehicle is not in motion or susceptible of easily being placed in motion.

An intoxicated passenger who engages four-wheel drive while acting in concert with the driver can exercise actual physical control of a vehicle under § 18-8004.

In Re Loader · filed 2009-06-04(1)(a), (5)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that because Debtor’s actions, when combined with those of Ojeda, caused the truck to move as it did, Debtor was exercising sufficient actual, physical control of the motor vehicle. Because he was intoxicated, Debtor’s conduct violated Idaho Code § 18—8004(1)(a) and was unlawful.

A person sitting in the driver’s position is not in actual physical control of a vehicle when its engine is off and it is not moving.

State v. Rocha · filed 2014-10-02(5)

Also of importance, Rocha could not be found to have been in “actual physical control” of the vehicle when the officer conversed with him on the roadside because the vehicle’s engine was not then running and the vehicle was not moving.

A self-propelled utility type vehicle is a motor vehicle under § 18-8004, and the State may prosecute intoxicated operation of one under that section even though § 67-7114 also applies.

State v. Trusdall · filed 2014-02-10(1)(a)

A UTV is a motor vehicle for purposes of I.C. § 18-8004, and because the general DUI statute is in harmony with the UTV-specific DUI statute, the State properly charged Trusdall under I.C. § 18-8004.

A person in the driver’s position with the motor running is in actual physical control of the vehicle; the vehicle need not be operable.

State v. Eversole · filed 2016-04-04(5)

However, the plain language of the statute only requires that the defendant be in the driver’s position of the motor vehicle with the motor running to show that the defendant was in “actual physical control” of the vehicle. We decline to read additional requirements into the statute, particularly where the language is clear and unambiguous.

Section 18-8004 covers driving a moped under the influence because a moped is a motor vehicle.

State v. McKie · filed 2018-04-12

Therefore, a moped is a motor vehicle for purposes of the DUI statute.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) requires proof that the defendant drove or had actual physical control of a motor vehicle; proximity to a wrecked vehicle alone does not establish control.

State v. Vazquez-Torres · filed 2020-11-04(1)(a)

We hold that the State failed to present substantial evidence that Vazquez-Torres actually physically controlled the wrecked vehicle necessary to establish a conviction for excessive DUI. See I.C. § 18-8004(1)(a) (requiring proof of “actual physical control”).

Section 18-8004(5) requires a vehicle to be moving or its motor running for a person in the driver’s position to have actual physical control.

State v. Borek · filed 2022-09-19(5)

Detective Steele unequivocally testified that Borek’s vehicle was neither moving nor running when Detective Steele arrived on the scene. Regardless, the district court found that Borek “was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in a highway,” contrary to I.C. § 18-8004(5).

Section 18-8004(4) permits admission of a breath test when the State establishes compliance with procedures that ensure the test’s reliability; the applicable mouthpiece procedure required a new mouthpiece for each series of tests, not each blow.

State v. Asselin · filed 2020-09-02(4)

Here, the magistrate court correctly identified the legal standards for admitting a breath test at trial, requiring that the State “establish that the administrative procedures, which ensure the reliability of the test, have been met.” State v. Healy, 151 Idaho 734, 736, 264 P.3d 75, 77 (Ct. App. 2011). The magistrate court considered Asselin’s argument that the Idaho State Police Standard Operating Procedures manual required that the mouthpiece be changed between each blow and found, based on the plain language, that a new mouthpiece was only required for each series of tests. ... The magistrate court applied correct legal standards and acted consistently with the applicable law and facts presented to it.

Section 18-8004(4) requires compliance with applicable testing standards to be established as a foundation for admitting a blood-alcohol test result.

State v. Bell · filed 1988-11-01(4)

We conclude that the district court erred in stating that compliance with the testing standards went to the weight of, rather than to the foundation for, the evidence.

Section 18-8004(4) permits blood serum testing if the result can be expressed in whole-blood terms.

State v. Koch · filed 1988-12-02(4)

Thus, although the blood alcohol test must yield a result that can be expressed in terms of whole blood, nothing in the statute or regulation prohibits testing the blood serum. Here, the serum was tested and the numerical result (.195 percent) was set forth with a conversion factor for whole blood, allowing the trier of fact to determine that the whole blood figure was approximately .16 percent. We hold that this methodology was permissible.

Section 18-8004(1) does not give a licensee the choice of which BAC test will be administered.

Matter of McNeely · filed 1990-07-24(1)

Idaho Code § 18-8004(1) indicates that it is not the licensee who can chose the BAC test to be given.

Section 18-8004(4) allows intoximeter results to be admitted without a witness establishing the testing procedure’s reliability, but admission alone does not establish guilt.

State v. Pressnall · filed 1991-01-03(4)

Thus, by legislative enactment, the intoximeter ... has been deemed reliable for the limited foundational purpose of having its test results admitted into evidence. ... We note, however, that the admissibility of the results of certain evidentiary testing does not equate to the sufficiency of such evidence to sustain a conviction.

Section 18-8004(4)’s breath-test procedures allow an uncertified officer to perform the required fifteen-minute observation before the test.

State v. Bradley · filed 1991-09-03(4)

It is plain from the language of the manual that a fifteen-minute observation is part of the “operating procedure” for conducting a breath test with the Intoximeter. However, the state urges that where, as here, the certified operator fails to make the preliminary observation of the test subject, an uncertified officer’s observations may serve as a substitute. We agree.

A driver who refuses an evidentiary alcohol test cannot offer an expert’s estimated BAC when the state proceeds on proof of impaired driving.

State v. Tate · filed 1992-04-07(4)

As a matter of policy, where a defendant by his own choice has denied access to the scientifically more reliable evidence, recognized by statute and case law, he should not be allowed to introduce less reliable secondary evidence consisting of nothing more than an imputed BAC. Accordingly, we adhere to our Andrus decision and will apply it here. We conclude that the trial judge committed no error in rejecting the expert’s opinion evidence offered in this case.

Breath test results in a DUI prosecution are inadmissible unless the state establishes compliance with the required fifteen-minute observation period.

State v. Utz · filed 1993-12-29(4)

Thus, there was no showing that the fifteen-minute waiting period had been complied with. Absent such a showing, the results of the breath test were inadmissible, and the magistrate’s conclusion to the contrary therefore was in error.

Section 18-8004(4) excuses the State from presenting certain foundational evidence for approved alcohol concentration tests unless those elements are disputed.

State v. Smith · filed 1997-10-23(4)

Under I.C. § 18-8004, certain foundational elements for alcohol concentration tests approved by the Department need not be presented by the State at trial unless such elements are disputed.

Section 18-8004(4) permits admission of a breath test when expert testimony establishes a sufficient foundation for its reliability, even if compliance with approved testing procedures is not shown.

State v. Charan · filed 1998-12-03(4)

We agree with the district court that this expert testimony regarding the reliability of the test presented an adequate foundation for its admission into evidence.

Section 18-8004(4) requires breath test procedures to be followed to establish the foundation for admitting test results; that admissibility standard is not a jury instruction on the results’ weight.

State v. Ward · filed 2001-01-16(4)

Both of Ward’s proposed jury instructions dealt with procedures which, pursuant to I.C. § 18-8004(4), must be followed prior to the administration of the breathalyzer test in order to meet the foundational requirements necessary to have the test results admitted at trial.

Section 18-8004(4) permits admission of breath test results from deficient samples when the state lays an adequate foundation for the test's reliability.

State v. Mazzuca · filed 1999-06-10(4)

The admissibility of a breath test result pursuant to I.C. § 18-8004(4) requires "adequate foundation evidence consisting either of expert testimony or a showing that the test was administered in conformity with the applicable test procedure." Bell, 115 Idaho at 39-40, 764 P.2d at 116-17. ... Thus, for the purposes of this issue, Mazzuca's case is indistinguishable from DeMarasse, Conrad, Harris and Wilkinson, where the courts held that the state laid sufficient foundation when it established that the test was properly administered, even though the results indicated that the breath samples were "deficient."

Section 18-8004(4) requires alcohol concentration tests to comply with Idaho State Police standards; a documented sixteen-minute observation period begun after transport satisfied the breath-test observation requirement.

Mahurin v. State · filed 2004-06-18(4)

Idaho Code § 18-8004(4) provides that tests to determine alcohol concentration of blood, urine or breath must be performed in facilities or by methods approved by the Idaho State Police and in compliance with standards set by the State Police. ... The hearing officer’s finding that an adequate observation period was conducted is supported by Officer Campbell’s police report, which was placed in evidence. It indicates that a sixteen-minute observation period was conducted and began after the arrival of Campbell and Mahurin at the sheriffs annex.

Breath test results require compliance with the approved testing method, including fifteen minutes of monitoring before the test; an officer who cannot adequately monitor the subject during that period does not establish the foundation for admission.

State v. DeFranco · filed 2006-09-05(4)

The statute provides that when it is shown that the breath test was administered by a method approved by the I.S.P., the results are admissible without the necessity of further evidence to establish the reliability of the testing procedure. ... Therefore, we hold that DeFranco was not “monitored” in such a manner as to accomplish the purpose of pre-test monitoring, as described in the training manual. Because only six minutes elapsed between the trooper’s return to DeFranco’s side and the administration of the breathalyzer test, the foundational requirements for the admission of the breath test were not met in this case.

Section 18-8004(4) requires compliance with the fifteen-minute observation period for breath tests, which an officer may time with a wristwatch.

In Re Suspension of Driver's License · filed 2006-11-14(4)

In the absence of a validly conducted fifteen-minute wait required by the manual, the hearing officer should vacate the license suspension because the breath test was not conducted in accordance with the requirements of I.C. § 18-8004(4). ... However, the manual and the standard operating procedures do not indicate that use of a wristwatch is impermissible. Therefore, the hearing officer properly found that the officer could time the fifteen-minute wait with his wristwatch.

Section 18-8004(4) requires a valid fifteen-minute observation period before a breath test; the officer may time it with a wristwatch when the testing procedures do not prohibit that method.

State of Idaho, Department of Transportation v. Gibbar · filed 2006-11-14(4)

In the absence of a validly conducted fifteen-minute wait required by the manual, the hearing officer should vacate the license suspension because the breath test was not conducted in accordance with the requirements of I.C. § 18-8004(4). ... However, the manual and the standard operating procedures do not indicate that use of a wristwatch is impermissible. Therefore, the hearing officer properly found that the officer could time the fifteen-minute wait with his wristwatch.

Section 18-8004(4) requires breath alcohol tests to follow prescribed monitoring procedures; an officer who leaves the room during the observation period does not comply.

Bennett v. State, Department of Transportation · filed 2009-04-02(4)

This testimony, then, would demonstrate that proper monitoring procedures were not followed, and that the test for alcohol concentration was, therefore, not conducted in accordance with the requirements of I.C. § 18-8004(4).

Section 18-8004(4) requires the prosecution to establish that a breath testing method was approved by the Idaho State Police before its results may be admitted.

State of Idaho v. Anderson · filed 2007-04-27(4)

To establish foundation for the admission of alcohol concentration test results, as relevant to this appeal, the prosecution was required to show that the Intoxilyzer 5000 was a method of analysis approved by the Idaho State Police.

Section 18-8004(4) requires the State to show that a breath test method was approved by the Idaho State Police when the test was conducted to establish a foundation for admitting the results.

State v. Anderson · filed 2008-01-09(4)

The State was required to show that the Intoxilyzer 5000 (breathalyzer test) was a method of analysis approved by the Idaho State Police at the time that the tests were conducted. ... Therefore, the State laid a sufficient foundation for the admission of the test results and it was within the discretion of the trial court to allow the admission of the evidence.

Section 18-8004(4) makes breath test results admissible without further proof of the testing procedure’s reliability when the test used a method approved by the Idaho State Police.

State v. Stump · filed 2009-01-22(4)

Pursuant to I.C. § 18-8004(4), the Idaho State Police (I.S.P.) are charged with promulgating standards for administering tests for breath alcohol content. The statute provides that when it is shown that the breath test was administered by a method approved by the I.S.P., the results are admissible without the necessity of further evidence to establish the reliability of the testing procedure.

Section 18-8004(4)'s breath-testing requirement concerns how the test is conducted; failure to attach a calibration record afterward does not show that the test was invalid.

Archer v. State, Department of Transportation · filed 2008-03-27(4)

Attaching a calibration record to a test record is an act performed after the test itself is complete. It could not have changed the validity of the test itself. ... Archer has failed to demonstrate that the test for alcohol concentration conducted in his case was not done in accordance with the requirements of I.C. § 18-8004(4).

Section 18-8004(4) requires breath alcohol testing to follow the prescribed procedures, including monitoring the subject for fifteen minutes; an officer who leaves the room and cannot use his senses to monitor the subject does not comply.

Stacie Dawn Bennett v. Idaho Dept. of Transportation · filed 2009-04-02(4)

Pursuant to I.C. § 18-8004(4), the Idaho State Police (ISP) are charged with promulgating standards for administering tests for breath alcohol content. ... Therefore, to the extent the evidence demonstrates that the officer left the monitoring room and, as such, could not employ his senses to monitor Bennett, proper procedures were not followed.

Section 18-8004(4) gives force of law to ISP breath test standards in its operating procedures and training manuals.

Schroeder v. State, Department of Transportation · filed 2009-04-30(4)

The standards for administration of breath tests in the SOP and training manuals have thus been given the force of law in this state and we treat their interpretation, accordingly, as a question of law.

Section 18-8004(4) does not make a breath test result inadmissible solely because a testing procedure phrased as “should” was not followed; the driver may present evidence that the violation made the result unreliable.

Wheeler v. Idaho Transportation Department · filed 2009-10-15(4)

In order to give due credit to the promulgating party‟s intent in repeatedly choosing to use the word “should” instead of “must” or “shall,” and vice versa, we conclude that the violation of a regulation requiring that a procedure “should” be followed does not render a test result inadmissible per se. Rather, in such case, the violation opens the door for the driver to attack the evidentiary test result through expert testimony or other evidence tending to prove that the violation rendered the result unreliable.

Section 18-8004(4) permits breath test results despite departures from testing procedures if expert testimony explains why the departures did not affect their reliability.

State v. Healy · filed 2011-09-12(4)

If the State cannot show conformity with the applicable test procedures, it does not automatically require the exclusion of the test results governed by I.C. § 18-8004(4). ... Thus, in order to meet the standard in Charan and allow breath test results into evidence when there is not strict compliance with the administrative procedures, the State needs to not only present an expert to testify, but that expert must also testify as to why procedural defects did not affect the reliability of test results in the particular case at issue.

Section 18-8004(4) requires breath tests to follow State Police approved methods and standards; the fifteen-minute observation requirement is met when the officer can use his senses to detect belching, burping, or vomiting.

Wilkinson v. State, Department of Transportation · filed 2011-11-17(4)

Idaho Code § 18-8004(4) provides that tests to determine alcohol concentration of blood, urine, or breath must be performed in facilities or by methods approved by the Idaho State Police and in compliance with standards set by the State Police. ... As long as Officer Davis was in a position to use his senses to determine that Wilkinson did not belch, burp, or vomit for the requisite time period, his observation was in compliance with State Police procedure.

Section 18-8004(4) requires breath tests to comply with State Police approved methods and standards; an officer satisfies the monitoring requirement when positioned to use his senses to detect belching, burping, or vomiting.

License suspension · filed 2011-11-17(4)

Idaho Code § 18-8004(4) provides that tests to determine alcohol concentration of blood, urine, or breath must be performed in facilities or by methods approved by the Idaho State Police and in compliance with standards set by the State Police. ... As long as Officer Davis was in a position to use his senses to determine that Wilkinson did not belch, burp, or vomit for the requisite time period, his observation was in compliance with State Police procedure.

Section 18-8004(4) permits admission of breath test certificates but does not require them to prove an element of driving under the influence.

State v. Kramer · filed 2012-04-25(4)

While the section provides how the certificates may be admitted into evidence, it does not require that the certificates be admitted in order to establish an element of proof of the crime charged.

Section 18-8004 permits a per se violation to be established by a test that meets the statutory requirements; the testing equipment’s margin of error is irrelevant.

Elias-Cruz v. Idaho Department of Transportation · filed 2012-06-29(4)

After the 1987 amendment, a violation can be shown simply by the results of a test for alcohol concentration that complies with the statutory requirements. With that change, the margin of error in the testing equipment is irrelevant. The equipment need not precisely measure the alcohol concentration in the person’s blood. The test need only be based upon the correct formula, and the equipment must be properly approved and certified.

Section 18-8004(4) requires alcohol concentration tests to comply with Idaho State Police standards; the fifteen-minute breath test monitoring requirement can be satisfied when the officer remains able to observe the driver using senses other than sight.

Broadfoot v. Idaho Transportation · filed 2012-10-25(4)

Idaho Code § 18-8004(4) provides that tests to determine alcohol concentration of blood, urine, or breath must be performed in facilities or by methods approved by the Idaho State Police (ISP) and in compliance with standards set by the ISP. ... Having reviewed the video recording in this case, we conclude the hearing officer did not lack substantial evidence in the record from which to conclude Deputy Dahlinger’s surveillance complied with the observation requirement of the fifteen-minute monitoring period.

Section 18-8004(4) requires breath alcohol testing to comply with ISP standards; an officer’s observation satisfies the applicable monitoring procedure when the officer has a reasonable opportunity to see and hear the subject throughout the period.

State v. Donndelinger · filed 2013-05-15(4)

Idaho Code § 18-8004(4) provides that tests to determine alcohol concentration of blood, urine, or breath must be performed in facilities or by methods approved by the ISP and in compliance with standards set by the ISP. ... Based on the record, there was substantial evidence to support the magistrate’s finding of fact that despite the road noise and other distractions, Trooper Murakami had a “reasonable opportunity” to see and hear Donndelinger throughout the observation period. And, given the facts as found by the magistrate, and evidence on the video recording, the magistrate and district court did not err in concluding the trooper observed Donndelinger to the degree required by the applicable SOP.

Section 18-8004(4) gives the Idaho State Police authority to set breath alcohol testing standards, including the fifteen-minute monitoring procedure applied here.

Kimbley v. State, Transportation Department · filed 2013-06-04(4)

Pursuant to I.C. § 18-8004(4), the Idaho State Police are charged with promulgating standards for administering tests for breath alcohol content. ... The hearing officer’s determination that the second monitoring period complied with applicable standards is supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record and the findings have not been demonstrated to be clearly erroneous.

Section 18-8004(4) gives the Idaho State Police authority to set breath alcohol testing standards; fifteen-minute monitoring complies when the officer remains able to use senses beyond sight to detect belching, burping, or vomiting.

Beyer v. Transportation Dept · filed 2013-06-04(4)

Pursuant to I.C. § 18-8004(4), the Idaho State Police (ISP) is charged with promulgating standards for administering tests for breath alcohol content. ... Therefore, so long as the officer is continually in a position to use his or her senses, not just sight, to determine that the defendant did not belch, burp or vomit during the monitoring period, the observation complies with the training manual instructions.

Section 18-8004(4) assigns the Idaho State Police authority to set standards for administering breath alcohol tests.

Platz v. State, Transportation Department · filed 2013-06-06(4)

Pursuant to I.C. § 18-8004(4), the Idaho State Police (ISP) are charged with promulgating standards for administering tests for breath alcohol content.

Section 18-8004(4) assigns the Idaho State Police responsibility for prescribing approved breath testing equipment and standards for administering breath tests.

State v. George Joseph Besaw, Jr. · filed 2013-06-21(4)

Pursuant to I.C. §§ 18-8004(4) and 18-8002A(3), the Idaho State Police agency is charged with prescribing by rule approved equipment for testing breath alcohol content and standards for administration of such tests.

Section 18-8004(4) makes compliance with Idaho State Police breath testing standards a foundation for admitting test results, unless expert testimony establishes that noncompliance did not affect their reliability and accuracy; the judge may consider hearsay when deciding whether that foundation exists.

State v. Swenson · filed 2014-07-03(4)

Absent expert testimony explaining why any noncompliance with one or more of the requisite ISP administrative standards and methods for administration of the test did not affect the reliability and accuracy of the test results, compliance with those standards is a foundational prerequisite to having the test results admitted into evidence. ... By terms of this rule, the magistrate court possessed discretion to consider Johnston’s hearsay testimony in determining that foundation for admission of the breath test results had been shown, and Swenson has not shown an abuse of that discretion.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) permits a per se DUI violation based on the alcohol concentration measured in a person's breath; it does not require a sample of air from the deep lung area.

State v. Roach · filed 2014-11-06(1)(a)

However, I.C. § 18-8004 does not require measurement of air from the deep lung area, or air in the alveoli, but simply requires measurement of the “breath.”

Section 18-8004 permits one valid breath sample above .08 to establish a violation for an administrative license suspension when the failure to obtain a second sample is not the fault of the officer or testing equipment.

Wernecke v. Idaho Transportation Department · filed 2015-03-30(4)

The SOP clearly contemplates a situation in which only one breath sample can be obtained from the subject without invalidating the test result. Thus, one evidentiary test sample indicating breath alcohol content in excess of .08 may be sufficient evidence of a violation of I.C. § 18-8004 for purposes of an ALS pursuant to I.C. § 18-8002A(7).

Section 18-8004(4) requires ISP-approved breath-testing methods to be adopted in compliance with IDAPA.

Hern v. Idaho Transportation Department · filed 2015-12-30(4)

However, the Haynes Court interpreted I.C. § 18-8004(4) to require that ISP’s approved method for breath testing be adopted in compliance with IDAPA. Thus, Hern’s breath test could not be conducted in accordance with the requirements of I.C. § 18-8004(4) because the method approved by ISP and used for Hern’s test (the 2013 SOPs) was not adopted in compliance with IDAPA.

Section 18-8004(4) requires breath testing to use an Idaho State Police approved method adopted in compliance with IDAPA; testing under the unadopted 2013 procedures does not satisfy that requirement.

Ewing v. Dept of Transportation · filed 2015-12-31(4)

However, the Haynes Court interpreted I.C. § 18-8004(4) to require that ISP’s approved method for breath testing be adopted in compliance with IDAPA. Thus, Ewing’s breath test could not be conducted in accordance with the requirements of I.C. § 18-8004(4) because the method approved by ISP and used for Ewing’s test (the 2013 SOPs) was not adopted in compliance with IDAPA.

Section 18-8004(4) requires an ISP-approved breath-testing method to be adopted in compliance with IDAPA; a test using the unpromulgated 2013 SOPs does not comply.

State v. Peterson v. Transportation Dept · filed 2016-02-25(4)

However, the Haynes Court interpreted I.C. § 18-8004(4) to require that ISP’s approved method for breath testing be adopted in compliance with IDAPA. Thus, Peterson’s breath test could not be conducted in accordance with the requirements of I.C. § 18-8004(4) because the method approved by ISP and used for Peterson’s test (the 2013 SOPs) was not adopted in compliance with IDAPA.

Section 18-8004(4) allows breath test results into evidence when the State shows that the machine was approved and operated under approved standards; admission does not establish that the results are accurate.

State v. Cruz-Romero · filed 2016-03-31(4)

By legislative enactment, breathalyzer machines are deemed reliable for the limited foundational purpose of having test results admitted into evidence, as long as the State introduces evidence that the designated state agency approved the machine and an officer operated the machine in compliance with approved standards.

Section 18-8004(4) requires breath alcohol testing to follow applicable standards adopted by the Idaho State Police; a test does not satisfy the section when the record fails to establish that those standards were properly adopted.

Hamilton v. Dept of Transportation · filed 2016-05-23(4)

The examiner’s conclusion that the ISP had adopted a temporary rule relating to the breath alcohol testing standards in accordance with the requirements of the IDAPA was not supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, Hamilton’s breath test was not conducted in accordance with the requirements of I.C. § 18-8004(4).

Section 18-8004(4) does not require testing a whole blood sample; a blood serum result may be converted to a whole blood result.

State v. Nelson · filed 2016-09-06(4)

The district court applied the correct legal standard in finding that it was not disqualifying for the BAC test to be performed on blood serum. ... There is no other statutory provision or administrative provision requiring the blood sample be comprised of whole blood.

In a criminal prosecution under § 18-8004, general challenges to the reliability and accuracy of approved intoxication testing methods are irrelevant.

State v. Sciandra · filed 2016-11-21

However, the holding in Elias-Cruz--that general challenges to the reliability and accuracy of approved intoxication testing methods are irrelevant--does not vary with the burden of proof.

Section 18-8004(4) removes the need to prove the reliability of an approved blood alcohol testing procedure in each case, but other foundational requirements still apply.

State v. Clapp · filed 2022-02-04(4)

As discussed above, Idaho Code section 18-8004(4) eliminates the need for the State to independently establish an accepted BAC test procedure’s reliability in every case it tries but does not provide “the only foundational requirement” for BAC test results to be admitted at trial.

Section 18-8004(4) removes the need to establish the reliability of an accepted BAC test procedure in each case, but other foundational requirements still apply.

State v. Clapp · filed 2022-05-20(4)

As discussed above, Idaho Code section 18-8004(4) eliminates the need for the State to independently establish an accepted BAC test procedure’s reliability in every case it tries but does not provide “the only foundational requirement” for BAC test results to be admitted at trial.

Inattentive driving is not a lesser included offense of driving under the influence under the pleading theory when the charge does not allege inattentive conduct as the means of violating § 18-8004.

State v. Curtis · filed 1997-07-21

While the police officer who arrested Curtis testified that the vehicle Curtis was operating was weaving on the roadway, the charge against Curtis does not contain any language indicating that the weaving manner in which Curtis was allegedly driving was the manner and means by which Curtis violated I.C. § 18-8004. ... We hold that under the pleading theory inattentive driving is not a lesser included offense of driving under the influence, I.C. § 18-8004, in this case.

Section 18-8004 permits DUI prosecution for conduct in a parking lot.

State v. Anderson · filed 1997-11-13

Until the cross-examination of deputy Schueller, the prosecutor may have failed to appreciate that the location of Anderson’s pickup in a parking lot permitted prosecution under the statute defining the DUI offense but not under the statute defining DWP.

Section 18-8004 applies to driving under the influence in a business parking lot open to members of the public, including prospective customers.

State v. Gibson · filed 1994-07-15(1)(a)

Without an express provision to do so, we decline to en-graft the definition of I.C. § 49-117(14) onto our interpretation of “private property open to the public” as used in I.C. § 18-8004. ... We conclude, as did the magistrate, that the parking lot of the Pasttime Bar was maintained for the use of any members of the public who wanted to patronize the business or for members of the public who did not want to patronize the bar but, for example, wanted to turn their vehicles around.

Section 18-8004 does not cover driving on a residential driveway merely because social guests and people with business at the residence may use it.

State v. Knott · filed 1999-04-05(1)(a)

The fact that social guests and persons with business at the residence are permitted to use the driveway does not make it property available to' the general public for vehicular traffic or parking. The residential driveway was not “private property open to the public” within the meaning of section 18-8004.

When a DUI charge alleges driving on a highway, the State must prove the offense occurred on an Idaho highway but need not prove the highway’s name.

State v. Hanson · filed 1997-11-26(1)(a)

The name of the highway upon which Hanson drove is not an essential element of the crime and need not be proven by the prosecution. All that need be demonstrated by the prosecution with regard to this element is that the offense occurred upon a highway of this state.

Section 18-8004(1) includes commercial business parking lots as private property open to the public.

State v. Bulkley · filed 2010-12-13(1)

The law has long recognized that the parking lots of restaurants, shopping centers, bars, grocery stores, gas stations, and other commercial businesses are included in the definition of private property open to the public.

Section 18-8004(5) does not make a prescription for lithium a defense to a charge of driving under the influence of intoxicants.

State v. Goerig · filed 1991-12-03(5)

Moreover, under I.C. § 18-8004(5), the fact that Goerig was legally entitled to take lithium because it had been prescribed to him is not a defense to a charge of driving under the influence of intoxicants.

Section 18-8004(5) does not require proof of a particular quantity of drugs in a driver's system; guilt turns on their effect on the driver's ability to drive safely.

State v. Lesley · filed 1999-03-01(5)

Idaho Code § 18-8004 does not require that a driver have a certain quantity of drugs in his or her system in order to be guilty of driving under the influence.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) permits a DUI conviction when the evidence shows that alcohol impaired the driver's ability to drive.

State v. MacE · filed 2000-01-27(1)(a)

This was sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that Mace's ability to drive was impaired by the influence of alcohol.

Section 18-8004 does not require proof of a particular quantity of drugs; a drug-related violation turns on their effect on the driver’s ability to operate a vehicle safely.

State v. Smelser · filed 2011-12-12

In regard to the first approach, Idaho Code § 18-8004 does not require that a driver have a certain quantity of drugs in his or her system in order to be guilty of driving under the influence; rather, a violation of the statute turns upon the effect the drugs, or combination of drugs and alcohol, have on the individual’s ability to safely operate a vehicle, not upon any quantification of the amount of a drug in the bloodstream.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) allows carboxy-THC evidence to support a driving-under-the-influence charge when the State also presents evidence of present marijuana impairment.

State v. Morin · filed 2015-02-25(1)(a)

In a prosecution under that statute, carboxy-THC evidence is relevant when the State also presents evidence of present marijuana impairment.

A medication capable of impairing driving may be evidence of a violation of § 18-8004(a) regardless of whether the driver has a prescription.

State v. Roy Roland Araiza, Sr. · filed 2015-03-31(a)

Additionally, given the crime for which Araiza was being investigated, the pill need not have even been a prescription medication and whether Araiza had a prescription was irrelevant; the presence of any type of medication capable of decreasing a person’s ability to drive would have been possible evidence of the crime of driving under the influence.

Section 18-8004(1)(a) covers driving under the influence of substances other than alcohol.

State v. Clark · filed 2024-08-12(1)(a)

Driving under the influence does not just include alcohol; rather, a person could drive under the influence of other substances. See I.C. § 18-8004(1)(a).

Section 18-8004’s DUI offense is substantially matched by an Arizona DUI statute despite differences in its timing and alcohol-consumption requirements.

State v. George Albert Shuck, Jr. · filed 2016-10-20

The only difference between the Idaho and Arizona statutes is that the Arizona statute has a two-hour time limit and a requirement that the accused must have consumed the alcohol prior to driving. These distinctions are the same distinctions this Court analyzed between the Idaho and North Dakota statutes in Moore, where we determined the foreign statute was substantially conforming. Thus, the Arizona statute prohibiting driving under the influence is substantially conforming to I.C. § 18-8004.

Under the 1997 version of section 18-8004(1)(a), a person under twenty-one could be charged with adult DUI if their blood alcohol concentration exceeded 0.08.

State v. Roberts · filed 2024-12-19(1)(a)

At the time of Roberts’ arrest in April of 1998, Idaho law permitted a person under twenty-one years of age to be charged with an adult DUI offense if that person’s BAC was over 0.08.

Section 18-8004(1)(d) can be violated by a driver under twenty-one whose alcohol concentration is at least 0.02 but less than 0.08, even without impairment.

State v. Connery · filed 2022-09-16(1)(d)

A plain reading of the statute demonstrates that a driver under the age of twenty-one may be in violation of I.C. § 18-8004(1)(d) even if the driver is not impaired or under the influence.