Commonwealth v. Hourican
85 Mass. App. Ct. 408
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- On April 20, 2012, defendant Pauric Houri-can was charged with OUI in Boston after police observed him crash into a patrol wagon, noted glassy eyes, and smelled of alcohol.
- Two breath samples yielded .121 and .143% BAC on an Alcotest 9510 with gas calibration; the only issue is the differential of .022 between samples.
- Defendant moved to suppress the postarrest breathalyzer evidence, arguing the .022% differential violated the regulatory standard.
- The 2010 regulations require that, if breath samples are not within +/- .02% BAC, a new sequence must begin; there is dispute whether this means rounding/truncation.
- The trial judge denied suppression, interpreting the regulation as requiring rounding the differential to .02% even though it is .022%.
- The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) reversed, holding § 2.14(4) (2010) ambiguous and suppressing the breathalyzer evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of 501 CMR § 2.14(4) (2010) | Houri-can contends .022% is not within ±.02% and cannot be truncated to .02. | Commonwealth contends truncation allows differential up to .029% to be reported as .02. | Section 2.14(4) (2010) ambiguous; suppression reversed. |
| Regulatory definiteness for criminal conduct | Regulation should be read strictly to require exact tolerance. | Regulatory text as practical standard permits truncation as a reasonable approximation. | Regulation is ambiguous; not clear enough to sustain admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullally v. Waste Mgmt. of Mass., Inc., 452 Mass. 526 (Mass. 2008) (regulatory interpretation and deference principles)
- Knapp Shoes, Inc. v. Sylvania Shoe Mfg. Corp., 418 Mass. 737 (Mass. 1994) (contextual interpretation of regulatory language)
- Caswell v. Licensing Commn. for Brockton, 387 Mass. 864 (Mass. 1983) (criminal regulation definiteness and due process)
- Commonwealth v. Steele, 455 Mass. 209 (Mass. 2009) (breathalyzer regulations and testing standards)
- Warcewicz v. Department of Envtl. Protection, 410 Mass. 548 (Mass. 1991) (agency interpretations of own regulations)