Driving under the influence and the burden of proof: judgment no. 26281 of 2024

Judgment no. 26281 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on the rights and duties of the parties involved in proceedings for driving under the influence. In particular, it highlights the burden of proof that rests on the public prosecutor regarding the homologation of the breathalyzer and the periodic checks to which it must be subjected. This aspect is crucial to ensure a fair trial and the protection of the defendant's rights.

The regulatory context

Driving under the influence is governed by Article 186 of the Highway Code, which establishes penalties for those who drive with an alcohol level exceeding the permitted limits. However, to ascertain the defendant's liability, it is essential to prove that the breathalyzer used for the test was duly homologated and subjected to periodic checks, as required by art. 379 of the Implementing Regulations of the Highway Code.

Implications of the judgment

Positive outcome of the breathalyzer test - Proof of homologation and revision of the breathalyzer - Burden on the public prosecutor - Conditions - Defendant's burden of allegation to contest the functioning of the device - Content - Case law. In matters of driving under the influence, the public prosecutor has the burden of providing proof of the homologation of the breathalyzer and its submission to the periodic checks provided for by art. 379 of the implementing regulations of the Highway Code, only in cases where the defendant has alleged elements suitable to contest the performance of such duties, the mere request for the aforementioned to be informed of the data relating to the homologation and periodic revision of the instrument not being sufficient for this purpose. (In application of the principle, the Court annulled the contested decision with referral, on the grounds that, in the face of specific defense allegations regarding the omission of annual checks relating to the device, the impact of the omitted fulfillment on the actual functionality of the breathalyzer had not been examined).

The Court ruled that the public prosecutor is required to demonstrate the homologation and regularity of the breathalyzer checks only if the defendant presents specific objections regarding the device's functionality. This principle draws a clear distinction between the responsibilities of the two parties, emphasizing the importance of evidence in criminal proceedings.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 26281 of 2024 represents a significant step in the case law concerning driving under the influence. It clarifies the rights of the defendant and the responsibilities of the public prosecutor, promoting a balance between road safety needs and the protection of individual rights. It is essential that each case be evaluated carefully, considering the specific circumstances and the evidence presented, so that justice can be administered equitably.