MICHAEL RAY SLEDD, Petitioner-Respondent v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE
503 S.W.3d 347
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Michael Sledd was arrested Aug. 13, 2014 for DWI; a breath test on a DataMaster machine indicated BAC > .08%.
- The Director of Revenue suspended Sledd’s license based on that breath test; Sledd timely objected at trial to foundation for the breath result under 19 C.S.R. 25-30.051(4).
- The objection focused on whether the breath‑test simulator (used to calibrate the analyzer) had the required NIST-traceable certification "annually," specifically whether the December 20, 2013 certification satisfied the regulation for 2014 maintenance and the Aug. 2014 arrest/test.
- Trial court found insufficient foundation and set aside the suspension because it concluded the simulator certification was not shown for 2014.
- The Director appealed, arguing the relevant certification requirement is that the simulator be certified at the time of the maintenance check (which here occurred Aug. 12, 2014) and that the Dec. 2013 certification remained effective for the required annual period.
Issues
| Issue | Sledd's Argument | Director's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a simulator must be certified "annually" meaning once per calendar year for evidentiary foundation | Simulator must be certified within the calendar year (so Dec. 2013 certification did not satisfy 2014) | "Annually" means within 365 days of prior certification; certification in effect at time of maintenance check suffices | Court holds "annually" means within 365 days; Dec. 2013 certification covered the Aug. 2014 maintenance/check and was sufficient for admissibility foundation |
| Proper foundation for admitting breath test results under DHSS rules | Lack of a 2014 simulator certification defeats foundational requirement | Foundation is satisfied if simulator was certified at time of the maintenance check that preceded the breath test | Trial court’s exclusion reversed; trial court should admit the breath test and then decide reliability/weight |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard of review for court‑tried civil cases)
- Sellenriek v. Dir. of Revenue, 826 S.W.2d 338 (Mo. banc 1992) (maintenance checks aim to ensure machine reliability at time of test)
- Kern v. Dir. of Revenue, 936 S.W.2d 860 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997) (post‑test maintenance may affect weight, not foundational admissibility)
- Harrell v. Dir. of Revenue, 488 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (literal compliance required but certification need not be shown for every year of simulator service)
- Blackwell v. Dir. of Revenue, 489 S.W.3d 879 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (regulation does not require proof of certification beyond date of BAC test for admissibility; reliability may be litigated on remand)
- McGough v. Dir. of Revenue, 462 S.W.3d 459 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (elements Director must prove to suspend license)