931 N.W.2d 226
N.D.2019Background
- Trooper stopped Nicholas Blaskowski for speeding on June 17, 2018 and arrested him for DUI after a breath test on an Intoxilyzer 8000 indicated BAC over the legal limit.
- Blaskowski consented to the chemical breath test; the Intoxilyzer 8000 Test Record and Checklist were offered at trial as the test result.
- The approved method for the Intoxilyzer 8000 required the device to be “installed by a Field Inspector prior to use.”
- The State admitted the approved method but presented no documentation that a field inspector installed the device at the testing location, nor any expert testimony that the test was fairly administered.
- The district court admitted the breath test result; a jury convicted Blaskowski of DUI. He appealed the admission of the test result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the breath test result was admissible under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07 because the device was fairly administered | State: The certified test record and approved method suffice to admit the result under § 39-20-07 | Blaskowski: The State failed to prove the device was installed by a field inspector as the approved method requires, so the shortcut in § 39-20-07 is unavailable | Reversed: Without proof of installation by a field inspector or expert testimony showing fair administration, § 39-20-07 foundational requirements were not satisfied and the test result was inadmissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Van Zomeren, 879 N.W.2d 449 (N.D. 2016) (evidentiary foundation and abuse of discretion review for admissibility of chemical tests)
- Ell v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 883 N.W.2d 464 (N.D. 2016) (where approved method required field-inspector installation, lack of proof of installation precludes use of § 39-20-07 shortcut)
- Thorsrud v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 819 N.W.2d 483 (N.D. 2012) (state toxicologist may promulgate approved methods for breath test administration)
- Rogers v. State, 903 N.W.2d 730 (N.D. 2017) (standard for abuse of discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
- Filkowski v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 862 N.W.2d 785 (N.D. 2015) (§ 39-20-07 requires proofs including fair administration)
- Lee v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 673 N.W.2d 245 (N.D. 2004) (scientific accuracy of chemical tests may require expert testimony absent strict compliance with approved method)