Muratore v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety
2014 OK 3
| Okla. | 2014Background
- On April 21–22, 2012 Mark Muratore was arrested for DUI and voluntarily submitted to a breath test on an Intoxilyzer 8000; two samples read .11 g/210L.
- DPS revoked Muratore's driver’s license administratively; he requested a hearing and administrative revocation was sustained; he appealed to district court.
- At trial the officer testified he was Board-trained but the Officer’s Affidavit contained multiple inaccurate, auto-populated dates.
- DPS sought to admit (a) a manufacturer’s Certificate of Calibration for the Intoxilyzer 8000 (CMI, Inc., Mar. 26, 2009) and (b) an ILMO Specialty Gases Certificate of Analysis for the reference gas (Feb. 10, 2012); trial court excluded both as hearsay.
- Trial court also found the Board of Tests had not implemented maintenance rules/procedures for the Intoxilyzer 8000, undermining proof the device was properly maintained.
- Trial court vacated the revocation; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed; Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of manufacturer’s calibration certificate and supplier’s gas analysis | Certificates are hearsay and inadmissible absent proper foundation | Certificates are admissible under public records (12 O.S. § 2803(8)) or business records (12 O.S. § 2803(6)) exceptions | Excluded: not public records (created by private entities) and DPS failed to lay business-records foundation; also not probative of device condition at arrest |
| Relevance of out‑of‑date calibration/analysis to device condition at time of arrest | Old certificates do not prove device worked at time of arrest | Certificates show baseline calibration/accuracy and gas composition | Excluded for lack of temporal relevance—calibration (2009) and gas analysis (Feb 2012) do not prove proper function in Apr 2012 |
| Burden to prove revocation (valid test on properly maintained device) | DPS must prove all facts by preponderance, including maintenance compliance | DPS argued admitted materials and officer’s report suffice | Held for Muratore: DPS did not meet its burden because maintenance rules/procedures for Intoxilyzer 8000 were not implemented and evidence was insufficient |
| Weight of affidavit inaccuracies and machine timestamps | Inaccuracies cast doubt on test integrity | Timestamps and affidavit can be reconciled; device likely recorded correctly | Court credited trial court’s concern—errors and unexplained timestamp issues support vacatur |
Key Cases Cited
- Westerman v. State, 525 P.2d 1359 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974) (board rules on operation/maintenance required; failure invalidates tests)
- Taylor v. State, 248 P.3d 362 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial hearsay in criminal cases)
- Clark v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 153 P.3d 77 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (maintenance log for Intoxilyzer 5000 admissible under public records where state officer performed maintenance)
- Derrick v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 164 P.3d 250 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (DPS bears burden to prove valid test on properly maintained device in revocation appeals)
- Smith v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 680 P.2d 365 (Okla. 1984) (standard for district court de novo review of license revocation)
- Kerr v. Clary, 37 P.3d 841 (Okla. 2001) (trial court’s hearsay-admissibility rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Cornett v. Carr, 302 P.3d 769 (Okla. 2013) (finality principles for prospective application of opinions)