Hubbard v. State
276 P.3d 751
Idaho Ct. App.2012Background
- Hubbard was stopped for a traffic violation and arrested for DUI under Idaho Code § 18-8004.
- Breath tests on a Lifeloc FC20 showed .113 and .109 BAC, leading to administrative license suspension.
- Hubbard appealed the suspension to ITD, which upheld it after a hearing.
- Hubbard petitioned for district court review, which affirmed the ITD decision.
- On appeal, Hubbard argues the test did not comply with ISP standards and the equipment malfunctioned.
- The key issue is whether the breathing instrument and procedures complied with ISP rules and whether evidence shows malfunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the breath test complied with ISP-approved methods | Hubbard: device failed to meet ISP standards | Hubbard cannot show device malfunction; procedures satisfied | No reversible error; test complied with SAP standards |
| Whether the testing equipment malfunction voids the suspension | Hubbard: evidence shows malfunction due to anomalous verifications | State: one anomalous reading insufficient to prove malfunction | No proof of malfunction; suspension remains affirmable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gibbar, 143 Idaho 937 (Ct.App.2006) (supports challenging results due to equipment malfunction when appropriate)
- In re Mahurin, 140 Idaho 656 (Ct.App.2004) (burden to show grounds to vacate via §18-8002A(7))
- Kane v. State, Dep't of Transp., 139 Idaho 586 (Ct.App.2003) (burden and standards for evidentiary testing challenges)
- State v. Hartwig, 112 Idaho 370 (Ct.App.1987) (machine reliability can be challenged despite admissibility)
- State v. Ward, 135 Idaho 400 (Ct.App.2001) (reliability and admissibility considerations for breath tests)
- Castaneda v. Brighton Corp., 130 Idaho 923 (Ct.1998) (agency record review independence from district court)