Expired Drager 6820: when breath test results no longer count

A driver’s breath test using an alco‑tester is one of the key pieces of evidence in cases under Article 130 of the Ukrainian Code of Administrative Offences, but its probative value directly depends on compliance with the technical requirements for the device. Court practice shows that if a Drager “Alcotest 6820” has been calibrated in breach of the six‑month interval set in the user manual, the results of such a test are treated as inadmissible evidence and the examination itself is considered invalid within the meaning of Article 266 of the Code.

Legal requirements for the test and the device
Article 266 of the Code lays down strict rules for breath tests for alcohol, drugs or other intoxication, including the use of certified technical devices that are in proper working order and have passed all required checks. The Drager “Alcotest 6820” manual expressly provides that calibration must be carried out every six months; this is not a recommendation but a condition for correct measurements under the Law on Metrology and Metrological Activity.

Thus, the calibration interval forms part of the legally prescribed procedure for the test. If the police ignore these requirements, both the manufacturer’s instructions and metrological standards are breached, which directly undermines the reliability of the readings.

Essence of the court ruling: expired calibration = invalid test
In the case at hand the court found that the driver’s alcohol test was carried out with a Drager “Alcotest 6820” whose last calibration had been performed more than six months before the test. The print‑out and metrological documents clearly showed the date of the last calibration, which fell outside the allowed interval; the police provided no other proof of proper technical maintenance.

Relying on part 5 of Article 266, the court held that any test conducted in breach of this provision is invalid. Since it is the police who must ensure the use of a properly maintained and timely calibrated device, the consequences of non‑compliance cannot be shifted onto the driver. As a result, the proceedings under Article 130 were closed for lack of proper and admissible evidence of intoxication.

Court’s reasoning: measuring equipment as a source of evidence
The court emphasised that a gas analyser is measuring equipment and therefore falls under metrology law. The reliability of the test result depends on adherence to the servicing schedule, including periodic calibration. If more than six months pass between calibrations, the risk of systematic error increases and cannot be assessed without special procedures, so the readings cannot be treated as conclusive proof.

Other judgments have focused not only on calibration intervals but also on certification and state registration of alco‑testers. Using devices that are not listed in the relevant registers or have expired certificates has likewise been considered a breach of Article 266 and has led to cancellation of sanctions. This shows that procedural formalism in “alco‑tester cases” is a safeguard for drivers’ rights rather than excessive bureaucracy.

Implications for drivers and the police
For drivers, the ruling is an important defence guideline. First, every driver may demand that police officers produce documents for the device: serial number, conformity certificate, and calibration or verification record with the date. If the six‑month gap between checks is exceeded, the driver can record this in the test report or protocol and later invoke invalidity of the test under part 5 of Article 266.

Second, in court it is advisable to request the full technical file for the specific Drager “Alcotest 6820”: inspection log, verification acts, operating manual. If these documents are missing or show breaches of service intervals, courts usually treat the test results as improper evidence and close the case.

For the police, this case law means stricter organisational requirements: proper inventory of devices, timely calibration, training of officers on metrological rules and clear communication to drivers about measurement error. Ignoring these aspects leads not only to lost cases but also to potential disciplinary liability.

Risks of using “expired” alco‑testers
Using devices with an expired calibration interval creates a systemic risk: dozens or hundreds of protocols may be based on unreliable data. Once such violations are discovered, the defence can seek review of final decisions on the basis of newly discovered circumstances.

Moreover, practice with the Drager “Alcotest 6820” aligns with cases where courts have questioned the legality of particular models altogether — for example, where they were not duly registered or had no conformity assessment. This shows that courts are ready to scrutinise the technical basis of the accusation rather than rely mechanically on a police report.

If you have questions or problems related to challenging breath‑test results, checking the legality of using a Drager “Alcotest 6820”, collecting evidence in a DUI case under Article 130 or choosing a defence strategy in court, you should seek qualified legal assistance — timely advice will help you identify procedural errors, challenge defective evidence and effectively protect your rights.

Author: Yevhenii Murchenko, Head of the Criminal Law and Procedure Practice of the law firm “WINNER”.