State v. Levanger
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted in justice court of misdemeanor driving under the influence, first offense. Defendant appealed to the district court and moved to exclude the results of his breath sample taken using an Intoxilyzer 8000 machine, arguing that they were obtained in violation of the machine’s checklist. The district court denied the motion. Defendant then pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to exclude. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion because, while the officers who took Defendant’s breath sample with the Intoxilyzer 8000 machine were not required to do so under the current administrative rule, ample evidence supported the conclusion that the officers complied with the breath analysis device’s operational checklist.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.