In a DUI case, the defense begins by clarifying the frame of reference and verifying the evidence, not by generally contesting the breathalyzer test. What each device measures matters; when the testing and collection were performed; what the toxicological analysis shows; and whether the documents in the case are consistent.<\/p>\n
Article 336, paragraph (1) of Criminal Code<\/a> Criminalizes the driving on public roads of a vehicle for which a license is required by a person with an alcohol level of over 0.80 g\/l pure alcohol in the blood. The punishment is imprisonment from one to five years and the prohibition of exercising certain rights. For the circumstances listed in paragraph (3), the limits are from two to seven years and the prohibition of exercising certain rights applies.<\/p>\n The current form of Article 336 was modified by Law no. 172\/2024<\/a>. For an act prior to the modification, the applicable law at the time must be verified and, if applicable, the more favorable criminal law must be applied.<\/p>\n The concentration in exhaled air and the blood alcohol level are distinct results, expressed in different units. Do not convert a breathalyzer value into a blood level using an approximate rule and do not draw legal conclusions based solely on a preliminary result.<\/p>\n Depending on the specific cause, the file may include the record sheet and the testing documents, the results of the examination, the records of the toxicological analysis, statements, records and expert reports. A useful analysis compares the chronology and the values recorded, verifies the identification of the samples and examines whether the results are consistent.<\/p>\n The rules approved by HG no. 877\/2024<\/a> I plan to collect two blood samples at an interval of one hour, each 10 ml in volume. The verification is done on the documents in the file: the hours entered, the procedure actually followed, the conditions of transport, and the laboratory findings.<\/p>\n Decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation no. 3\/2014<\/a> he interpreted the then form of Article 336(1) and determined that, in the double-sampling scenario under consideration, the first sample was of criminal relevance. Subsequently, CCR Decision No. 732\/2014<\/a> The term \u201eat the time of the collection of the biological samples\u201d in the text under review was declared unconstitutional. The current form of Article 336 no longer includes that term. These decisions must be read in the context of the applicable rule and the date of the act; they do not constitute an automatic formula for resolving each case.<\/p>\n Medical expertise can be relevant if there is a real technical problem that cannot be clarified from the analysis report and the rest of the documents. For example, it may be necessary to clarify the methodology, the values, the chronology, or the limits of the toxicological conclusion. The objectives must be formulated precisely and related to an issue that matters for the specific case.<\/p>\n The lack of retroactive calculation, the existence of a difference between two values or the request for a new expert opinion do not automatically lead to payment. The court assesses the evidence as a whole, and the conclusion depends on the submitted material and the applicable law.<\/p>\n Every irregularity must be linked to the effect it may have on a evidence or on the right to a defense. A formal error does not automatically lead to the annulment of the act or the exclusion of the evidence.<\/p>\n If the act does not constitute a crime, driving under the influence of alcohol can be sanctioned with a misdemeanor fine of the fourth class and a suspension of the right to drive for 90 days, pursuant to Article 102, paragraph (3), letter a) of the Criminal Code. Ordinance no. 195\/2002<\/a>. The general deadline for the contravention complaint is 15 days from the notification of the record of the proceedings, and Article 118 regulates the competent court and the effect of suspending enforcement upon the registration of the complaint.<\/p>\n In a criminal case, the procedure is different. A contravention protocol, a summons, an order or a measure regarding the permit may entail different procedures and deadlines. Identify exactly the received act and the date of communication before choosing the procedural step.<\/p>\n The refusal or evasion of the collection of the necessary biological samples for determining alcohol levels is criminalized separately from Article 337 of the Criminal Code. The situation and its consequences are determined based on the circumstances and the documents in the case file; it is not confused with the defense against the accusation under Article 336.<\/p>\n Does a positive result on an alcohol test alone prove the offense?<\/strong> Does any discrepancy between the documents lead to the exclusion of evidence?<\/strong> What should I keep?<\/strong> A realistic defense relies on documents and verifiable evidentiary issues, without promises regarding the outcome. For details about The criminal threshold and alcohol the evidence while driving<\/a> or about challenge of the sanction and the 15-day period<\/a>, For an analysis of the documents in a specific case, visit the page dedicated to that case. Contact us<\/a>.<\/p>\n Informative material, which does not replace legal advice for an individual situation. The applicable law and conclusions depend on the date of the event, the documents in the file, and the evidence presented.<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u00centr-un dosar de alcool la volan, ap\u0103rarea \u00eencepe prin clarificarea \u00eencadr\u0103rii \u0219i verificarea probelor, nu prin contestarea generic\u0103 a etilotestului. Conteaz\u0103 ce m\u0103soar\u0103 fiecare aparat, c\u00e2nd au fost f\u0103cute testarea \u0219i recoltarea, ce arat\u0103 analiza toxicologic\u0103 \u0219i dac\u0103 documentele din dosar sunt coerente. Pragul penal \u0219i sanc\u021biunile prev\u0103zute de lege Art. 336 alin. (1) din […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7173,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[173],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-penal"],"yoast_head":"\nWhat evidence are being analyzed?<\/h2>\n
What does the jurisprudence regarding the two evidence mean?<\/h2>\n
When can expertise be useful?<\/h2>\n
What does the defense actually check?<\/h2>\n
\n
The criminal case is different from the misdemeanor case.<\/h2>\n
Refusing to be tested is a separate offense<\/h2>\n
Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n
No. The result must be interpreted according to road traffic regulations and analyzed together with the the evidence administered. The threshold in Article 336, paragraph (1) is expressed in g\/l pure alcohol in blood.<\/p>\n
No. It must be determined which rule was violated and whether the irregularity affects the legality, reliability, or probative value in the specific case.<\/p>\n
The minutes or received documents, the proof of the permit, the test vouchers and documents, the harvesting documents, the toxicology report and any correspondence regarding their communication.<\/p>\nIndividual analysis of the case file<\/h2>\n