Driving Under the Influence and Burden of Proof: Ruling No. 26281 of 2024

The ruling No. 26281 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides an important reflection on the rights and duties of the parties involved in a driving under the influence proceeding. In particular, it highlights the burden of proof that lies with the public prosecutor regarding the approval of the breathalyzer and the periodic checks it must undergo. This aspect is crucial to ensure a fair trial and protect the rights of the accused.

The Regulatory Context

Driving under the influence is governed by Article 186 of the Highway Code, which establishes penalties for those who drive with a blood alcohol level exceeding the permitted limits. However, to ascertain the responsibility of the accused, it is essential to demonstrate that the breathalyzer used for the test was regularly approved and subjected to periodic checks, as provided by Article 379 of the Implementation Regulation of the Highway Code.

The Implications of the Ruling

Positive outcome of the breathalyzer test - Proof of the approval and periodic revision of the breathalyzer - Burden on the public prosecutor - Conditions - Burden on the accused to provide evidence challenging the functioning of the device - Content - Case law. In the matter of driving under the influence, the public prosecutor has the burden of providing proof of the approval of the breathalyzer and its submission to the periodic checks required by Article 379 of the Implementation Regulation of the Highway Code, only in the event that the accused has presented suitable elements to contest the performance of such obligations, as the mere request for information on the approval and periodic revision of the instrument is not sufficient for this purpose. (In applying this principle, the Court annulled the appealed decision, noting that, in light of the specific defensive claims regarding the omission of annual checks on the device, the impact of the omitted compliance on the actual functionality of the breathalyzer had not been considered).

The Court established that the public prosecutor is required to demonstrate the approval and regularity of the checks of the breathalyzer only if the accused presents specific challenges concerning the functionality of the device. This principle draws a clear distinction between the responsibilities of the two parties, emphasizing the importance of evidence in a criminal trial.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling No. 26281 of 2024 represents a significant step in the jurisprudence regarding driving under the influence. It clarifies the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of the public prosecutor, promoting a balance between the needs of road safety 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 fairly.

Bianucci Law Firm