This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was stopped by a police officer after failing to stop at a stop sign and nearly colliding with the officer's vehicle. The officer observed signs of intoxication, and the Defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests. The Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and transported to the detention center, where a breath alcohol test (BAT) was administered. The officer did not check the Defendant's mouth at the start of the 20-minute observation period but testified that the Defendant did not eat, drink, or smoke during that time (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court: Convicted the Defendant of DWI, failure to yield, and improper turning at an intersection (para 3).
- District Court: Convicted the Defendant of the same offenses after a de novo appeal and remanded the case to the magistrate court for re-sentencing (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to comply with the regulation requiring the officer to ascertain that the Defendant had not eaten, drunk, or smoked for 20 minutes before the BAT. The Defendant contended that this required affirmative steps, such as checking the mouth or asking questions, which were not performed (paras 1, 4, 8).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the officer's actions, including observing the Defendant during the 20-minute period and ensuring no opportunity to eat, drink, or smoke, satisfied the regulatory requirements (paras 6-7).
Legal Issues
- Did the State comply with the regulation requiring the officer to ascertain that the Defendant had not eaten, drunk, or smoked for 20 minutes before the BAT?
- Was the BAT result admissible as evidence in light of the alleged non-compliance with the regulation?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction for DWI, finding that the State failed to lay the necessary foundation for the admission of the BAT results (paras 18-19).
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry J. (Sutin C.J. and Robinson J. concurring):
- The Court held that the regulation requiring the officer to "ascertain" that the Defendant had not eaten, drunk, or smoked for 20 minutes prior to the BAT is accuracy-ensuring and must be strictly complied with (paras 12-13).
- The term "ascertain" requires affirmative steps, such as checking the subject's mouth or asking questions, to ensure compliance. Merely observing the Defendant during the 20-minute period is insufficient (paras 16-17).
- The officer admitted that he did not check the Defendant's mouth or take other affirmative steps to ascertain compliance, and there was no evidence to establish that the regulation was satisfied (paras 15-16).
- Without proper foundation, the BAT results were inadmissible, and the district court abused its discretion in admitting them (para 18).