The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified the nuance of the reuse of the mouthpiece of the breathalyzer

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has recognized the permissible reuse of the mouthpiece of the breathalyzer when checking one driver. The relevant decision was made following a complaint from a resident of the Nizhny Novgorod region, who was fined 30,000 rubles and suspended for a year and a half for driving under the influence. This was reported on August 3 by the Russian Agency for Legal and Judicial Information (RAPSI).

As follows from the case file, the examination of the female Lada Vesta driver recorded 0.724 mg of alcohol per liter of exhaled air. At the same time, she insisted on her sobriety and pointed out a violation of the inspection procedure, since the inspectors used the mouthpiece repeatedly.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that the current rules do not require mandatory replacement of the mouthpiece during repeated testing of the same person if the first exhalation was interrupted unintentionally.

The higher authority also reminded that in case of doubts about the correctness of the device readings, the driver has the right to reject the results and undergo a medical examination. At the same time, the column in the verification report with the wording "agree/disagree" does not allow for double interpretation. The court noted that following the results of the inspection, the woman did not object and did not insist on additional medical examination. As a result, the earlier court decisions were left unchanged, and the complaint was dismissed.

To believe what was said: The Supreme Court canceled the additional payment of the car fee

Customs officers were not allowed to demand additional payments from the importer of the car

As reported on July 29, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered a case on the confiscation of a car already sold by a driver convicted of driving under the influence. The reason was the representation of the Prosecutor General's Office, which challenged the decisions of lower authorities who refused to seize the car.