If a person is stopped by police officers and shows signs of alcohol intoxication, they have the right to undergo an examination for intoxication either at the scene or in a medical facility. Lawyer Petryk.

An individual has the right to refuse an examination at the scene without providing any justification or reason. This is a lawful right to be examined by a professional medical specialist who can accurately determine whether the individual is intoxicated using specialized equipment, in conditions that allow for proper testing in accordance with regulations and using appropriate devices while ensuring compliance with all requirements for such an examination.

In practice, it often happens that individuals are asked to undergo intoxication testing in roadside conditions, such as during severe frost or extreme heat, where the breathalyzer device might show erroneous results. Therefore, individuals are entitled to request an examination for intoxication at a medical facility in cases under Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine (CAO).

To exercise this right, a person must file a motion requesting an examination in a medical facility.

This is supported by judicial practice, particularly the appellate instance of the Kyiv region, which upheld the arguments of Lawyer Petryk and his client regarding the mandatory necessity of referring a person to a medical facility if they express such a desire under Article 130 of the CAO.

During the case review by the court of first instance and subsequently by the appellate court, it was established that the individual was not referred to a medical facility despite filing such a motion. Nonetheless, the police officers issued a protocol under Article 130 of the CAO in violation of legal requirements.

Analyzing the legislation, particularly the provisions indicating that a person has the legal right to undergo an intoxication examination in a medical facility, Lawyer Petryk appealed the first-instance decision to the appellate court. The appellate court upheld the appeal, annulled the first-instance decision, and acquitted the individual of the alleged offense under Article 130 of the CAO.