State v. Molnar’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The following is the approved method to conduct a B.A.C. Datamaster with keyboard test for ethanol intoxication: (1) The person to be tested must: (A) have had nothing to eat or drink; (B) not have put any foreign substance into his or her mouth or respiratory tract; and (C) not smoke; within twenty (20) minutes before the time a breath sample is taken. (2) The green LED on the instrument display must be glowing. (3) Depress the run button, enter the password, and insert the evidence ticket or verify that the external printer is ready to use. (4) Follow the displayed request for information, and enter the information by the keyboard. (5) When “please blow” appears on the display, place a new mouthpiece in the breath tube. The subject must deliver a breath sample. (6) When the printer stops, remove the evidence ticket or report sheet from the printer and check the report printed on the evidence ticket or report sheet for the numerical ethanol subject sample and correct date and time.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Short v. State

2. “There is no dispute here that Molnar did not place any foreign substance in his mouth within twenty minutes of the test. The regulation makes no provision for residue remaining from matter removed from the subject's mouth before the twenty-minute period begins and does not invalidate the breath test results due to residue remaining in the subject's mouth. * * * As the trial court found and both parties agree, the obvious reason for the twenty-minute rule is to prevent a foreign substance from affecting the breath test results. The Department of Toxicology determined that twenty minutes is a long enough period to sufficiently mitigate the contaminating effect of anything contained in a subject's mouth once the matter is removed, including any residue remaining in the mouth. Thus, we must rely on the expertise of the Department and trust that it decided twenty minutes is a sufficient waiting period to protect the integrity and accuracy of the test results.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Guy v. State

3. “We do agree that the rule clearly contemplates that a substance `put' in the mouth will be removed more than twenty minutes before the test is administered; what we do not conclude is that the rule requires all possible residue from the substance to be removed as well.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Guy v. State