367 P.3d 17
Alaska2016Background
- John Botson was arrested for DUI and submitted to breath testing; the device reported .141 after a valid subject sample.
- The DataMaster ran an external standard quality check before and after the subject sample; the post-sample check returned "standard out of range" (.018) while the pre-check was within range (.080); the officer failed to notice the error on screen/printout.
- Officer informed Botson of his right to an independent chemical test; Botson declined the offer on the spot.
- Botson moved to suppress the breath result under Anchorage Municipal Code 09.28.023(E) (tests must be performed according to Department of Public Safety–approved methods) and on due‑process grounds, arguing nondisclosure of the error prevented a knowing waiver of the independent-test right.
- The district court and Court of Appeals found (1) the Municipality did not strictly comply with Department protocol but substantially complied and the error did not undermine reliability, and (2) Botson knowingly and intelligently waived his right to an independent test. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Botson) | Defendant's Argument (Municipality) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under AMC 09.28.023(E): whether the post‑sample external‑standard error rendered the test invalid | The machine produced a quality‑control error; strict compliance with DPS‑approved methods required suppression | Substantial compliance is sufficient; the error did not affect test accuracy | The Municipality failed strict compliance but proved substantial compliance; test admissible |
| Standard for assessing compliance: are "methods approved by the state" limited to codified regulations? | The external standard check is an approved DPS method (per Manual) and its failure matters | DPS regulations do not expressly codify the external standard; substantial compliance doctrine governs | DPS approved methods include non‑codified protocol in practice; but substantial compliance governs admissibility |
| Constitutional waiver of independent test: whether withholding (or failing to disclose) the error precluded a knowing and intelligent waiver | Failure to disclose the error deprived Botson of information material to deciding whether to request an independent test; waiver invalid | A defendant need only have a "basic understanding" of the right (notice of the right, awareness of arrest, and general purpose); no duty to disclose every testing irregularity | Waiver was knowing and intelligent under the court of appeals/Alaska Supreme Court’s application of the "basic understanding" standard; suppression not required |
| Scope of required disclosure about testing irregularities | Officer must disclose errors that would bear directly on the likelihood of inaccuracy (proposed by dissent) | Requiring disclosure of all observable irregularities would effectively convert substantial compliance into strict compliance and is unnecessary | Court declines to adopt expanded disclosure rule; leaves door open to moderate rule but finds the error here would not have changed a reasonable person’s decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Wester v. State, 528 P.2d 1179 (Alaska 1974) (substantial compliance with 15‑minute observation sufficient to admit breath test)
- Oveson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 574 P.2d 801 (Alaska 1978) (substantial compliance doctrine applied where omitted checklist entry was shown to have been performed)
- Keel v. State, 609 P.2d 555 (Alaska 1980) (failure to prove proper qualification for calibration undermined reliability and admissibility)
- Gundersen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 792 P.2d 673 (Alaska 1990) (due process requires opportunity for independent chemical test; waiver must be knowing and intelligent)
- Crim v. Municipality of Anchorage, 903 P.2d 586 (Alaska App. 1995) (arrestee may validly waive independent‑test right without knowing breath result if basic understanding present)