288 P.3d 695
Wyo.2012Background
- Romsa was arrested for DWUI under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 81-5-233(b) and requested a contested case hearing before the OAH to challenge the breath test procedures.
- The OAH upheld a per se suspension of Romsa's license, and the district court affirmed, leading to Romsa's appeal.
- At the detention center, Romsa submitted to a breath test; an initial test aborted due to mouth alcohol after chewing tobacco was present in his mouth, triggering a 15-minute observation period.
- Romsa's first usable breath samples yielded BACs of .100 and .108; the record shows the mouth alcohol abort occurred and was not caused by vomiting, per the DOH rules.
- Romsa argued the observation period should have restarted after the mouth alcohol abort, and that the breath test result was therefore invalid; the agency and court rejected this argument.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court ultimately held that the DOH rules do not require a new 15-minute observation period in this situation and that the breath test result could be presumptively valid, with Romsa given no additional evidence to rebut under Rule 12.08.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity presumption of breath test result | Romsa: presumption invalid if § 31-6-105(a) noncompliance shown. | WyDOT: presumption of validity applies when methods approved; rebuttal possible only for equipment or improper administration. | Presumption valid; no contrary evidence presented to rebut. |
| Right to present additional evidence on appeal | Romsa: should be allowed under Rule 12.08 to rebut with new evidence. | Romsa failed to seek leave to present evidence; discovery limits applicable; no good cause shown. | Rule 12.08 not satisfied; no remand for new evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. City of Laramie, 187 P.3d 355 (Wy. 2008) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning controls when unambiguous)
- Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 188 P.3d 554 (Wy. 2008) (administrative review; substantial evidence standard and de novo for law)
- Jones v. State ex rel. Wyo. DOT, 991 P.2d 1251 (Wy. 1999) (subpoena and due process for confrontation; discovery limits in implied consent hearings)
- McClean v. State, 62 P.3d 595 (Wy. 2003) (statutory interpretation; standard of review for ambiguous statutes)