It is one of the most common questions raised by people after a DUI arrest in Georgia: ‘I blew into the breathalyzer, but the officer wouldn’t tell me what my result was.’ The confusion is understandable — but in almost every case, what the driver actually blew into was not a breathalyzer at all. It was a portable breath test (PBT), and the legal treatment of PBT results versus true breathalyzer results is a distinction that matters significantly to your defense.

Two Types of Breath Tests in Georgia DUI Investigations

During the course of a DUI investigation in Georgia, a law enforcement officer may seek two different types of breath samples from a driver at two different points in the encounter. Understanding the difference between them — and the legal rules that govern each — is fundamental to understanding what happened during your arrest.

The Portable Breath Test (PBT): On the Scene

The first type of breath test is administered at the roadside, typically during the field sobriety test phase of the investigation and before any arrest is made. The officer uses a handheld, portable device that the driver is asked to blow into. This device is the portable breath test, or PBT.

The PBT is a screening tool, not an evidentiary instrument. While it generates a numerical BAC reading on the officer’s display, that numerical result is not admissible in a Georgia DUI prosecution for the purpose of establishing the driver’s actual BAC. Under Georgia law and the rules governing the admission of breath test evidence, the PBT has not been approved as an evidentiary testing device, and its numerical output cannot be introduced at trial as proof of the driver’s blood alcohol concentration. See O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392.

What can be admitted is the fact that the PBT registered a positive result for the presence of alcohol — a binary positive/negative indication, without the specific number. Officers use this information as part of their probable cause determination for arrest, and they may testify that the device registered a positive result. But the number the driver is so curious about — and which the officer conspicuously refuses to share — is legally excluded from evidence precisely because the PBT is not considered reliable enough to establish a quantitative BAC reading.

This is why the officer does not — and under proper procedure, should not — disclose the numerical PBT reading to the driver. It is not an oversight or an attempt to hide something; it reflects the evidentiary rules that govern what the officer is permitted to testify about in court. Telling the driver a specific number from a PBT that cannot be admitted into evidence would serve no legitimate purpose and could create confusion about the legal significance of the reading.

The Evidentiary Breath Test: The Intoxilyzer 9000

The second type of breath test — the actual breathalyzer — is administered at the jail or law enforcement facility following a DUI arrest. In Georgia, the only breath testing instrument approved for evidentiary use in DUI prosecutions is the Intoxilyzer 9000, manufactured by CMI, Inc. This is the tabletop instrument into which the defendant blows two separate samples at the direction of the operator.

The Intoxilyzer 9000 generates a printed result ticket showing the two sample readings, the date, time, operator identification, and other relevant data. This printout is provided to the defendant and constitutes the evidentiary record of the breath test. When a defendant submits to this test and receives a printout, they do receive their result — because this is the instrument whose results are admissible in court, and they have a legal right to that information.

The Intoxilyzer 9000’s results are governed by O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392 and the rules promulgated by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI), Division of Forensic Sciences. The instrument must be operated in accordance with GBI-approved methods, by a trained and certified operator, and the instrument must have a current verification certificate confirming its accuracy. Defense attorneys regularly request the instrument’s maintenance and calibration records, the operator’s certification records, and the solution traceability records for the simulator solution used to verify the instrument’s accuracy — all of which are discoverable and all of which can form the basis for challenging the reliability of the result.

Why the Distinction Matters for Your Defense

Understanding which device you blew into affects the analysis of your case in several ways. If you blew into a PBT only and were never asked to take the Intoxilyzer 9000, the government does not have an evidentiary BAC reading — only a positive indicator. The prosecution must then rely on other evidence of impairment: officer observations, field sobriety test performance, and driving behavior. This can be a significantly weaker case than one supported by an Intoxilyzer 9000 result.

If you were asked to take the Intoxilyzer 9000 and the result was at or above 0.08 grams, you should have received a printout. If you were not given a printout, or if the test was administered in a manner inconsistent with GBI requirements, these procedural defects can form the basis of a suppression motion challenging the admissibility of the result. Suppression of an over-limit breath test result eliminates the per se DUI charge, potentially reducing the government’s case to a ‘less safe’ DUI theory that is harder to prove.

Regardless of which device you blew into, the only way to fully evaluate the implications of the test — or the refusal — for your defense is to consult with an experienced DUI defense attorney who can review all available evidence, including the arrest video, the implied consent recording, and the instrument records.