Keller v. North Dakota Department of Transportation, 2015 ND 81

Keller was stopped for lane violation; officer observed signs of impairment and Keller admitted drinking. After arrest he failed field tests and an onsite breath test.
At the station Keller provided one adequate breath sample on an Intoxilyzer but would not or could not provide a second adequate sample; the officer manually terminated the test sequence before the machine timed out.
Keller objected at the administrative hearing that the approved method was not scrupulously followed and that, absent scrupulous compliance, expert testimony was required to show fair administration.
The hearing officer overruled the objection, admitted the Intoxilyzer record, and suspended Keller’s license for one year; the district court affirmed.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Department proved scrupulous compliance or, if not, whether expert testimony established fair administration of the test.

Issue	Keller's Argument	Department's Argument	Held
Whether the Intoxilyzer test was administered in scrupulous compliance with the approved method	Officer aborted test early, so scrupulous compliance not shown; absent compliance, test inadmissible unless expert shows fair administration	Single adequate sample is valid per the Approved Method when second sample is deficient; machine would have timed out and the single result is admissible	The premature manual termination was a deviation that may have affected accuracy; without expert testimony, fair administration was not shown and the test record should have been excluded
Whether an expert is required when a deviation occurs that may affect reliability	Expert testimony required to establish effect of deviation on reliability	No expert necessary because approved method permits single-sample reporting when second is deficient	Expert testimony was required here because the deviation (manual abort before timeout) was not addressed by the approved method and could have affected results

Buchholz v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 639 N.W.2d 490 (2002) (test results admissible when approved method scrupulously followed; scrupulous not hypertechnical)
State v. Keller, 833 N.W.2d 486 (2013) (deviation affecting scientific accuracy requires expert proof of fair administration)
Ringsaker v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 596 N.W.2d 328 (1999) (clerical deviations may be harmless)
Wagner v. Backes, 470 N.W.2d 598 (1991) (sequence deviations not always fatal)
Schwalk v. State, 430 N.W.2d 317 (1988) (failure to show compliance with each step can render test inadmissible)