Edwards v. Colorado Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division, 2016 COA 137

Robin F. Edwards was stopped at 8:51 a.m. for speeding and showed signs of intoxication; she chose a breath test.
At the police station, breath-test protocol required a 20-minute deprivation period and two agreeing samples to be "valid."
Edwards’s first attempt produced an exception report; a second 20-minute deprivation period ran from 10:30–10:50 a.m.
Valid breath samples were taken at 10:52:06 a.m. and 10:56:45 a.m.; the 10:56 a.m. sample showed BAC .229.
The hearing officer revoked Edwards’s license, finding the testing sequence began within two hours; the district court affirmed on different grounds, finding testing need not be completed within two hours and that the post-two-hour result supported an inference of excessive BAC at the time of driving.
The Court of Appeals considered whether Colorado’s revocation statute requires obtaining valid breath samples within two hours after driving to support civil revocation for excessive BAC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation for excessive BAC requires valid breath samples to be obtained within two hours after driving	Edwards: revocation statutes require the breath samples establishing BAC to be obtained within two hours of driving	Department: statute does not require completion of testing within two hours; testing sequence may begin within two hours and be completed after	Held: Revocation under § 42-2-126(2)(b) requires obtaining the valid breath samples (i.e., the samples that establish BAC) within the two-hour period after driving; Edwards’s samples were outside the limit, so revocation cannot be sustained
Whether post-two-hour test results may be used to infer BAC at time of driving or excuse strict timing (substantial-accordance / inferential use)	Edwards: post-two-hour samples cannot support revocation or be used to show BAC within the statutory period	Department: a factfinder may use later test results and other indicia of intoxication to infer BAC at the time of driving; hearing officer applied a "substantial accordance" standard	Held: Court rejected a "substantial accordance" timing exception and rejected use of tests obtained after two hours to satisfy revocation under § 42-2-126(2)(b); such tests cannot form the sole basis for civil revocation (though may be relevant in criminal proceedings)

Charnes v. Olona, 743 P.2d 36 (Colo. 1987) (one-hour statutory testing limit under earlier statute interpreted as requiring test performance within the time limit)
Colo. Div. of Revenue v. Lounsbury, 743 P.2d 23 (Colo. 1987) (same principle regarding timing of tests)
Boom v. Charnes, 766 P.2d 665 (Colo. 1988) (refusal and timing: testing must be within statutory time to support revocation)
Gallion v. Colo. Dep’t of Revenue, 171 P.3d 217 (Colo. 2007) (two-hour time frame for obtaining a sample discussed in express-consent context)
Stumpf v. Colo. Dep’t of Revenue, 231 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2009) (distinguishing refusal and test-result revocations; timing limits applied)
Hibbs v. Colo. Dep’t of Revenue, 122 P.3d 999 (Colo. 2005) (standards for appellate review of administrative revocations)