State v. Buckland
96 A.3d 1163
Conn.2014Background
- Defendant Howard Buckland was stopped for speeding and arrested after an officer (Sergeant James Desso, a town-appointed special constable) observed signs of intoxication and failed field sobriety tests.
- At the station the defendant consented to breath testing on a Draeger Alcotest 9510; two breath samples produced readings of .2217 and .2173.
- The state admitted the Draeger printouts and a certification that the instrument was approved for evidential use (admitted without objection); the breath operator (Desso) and a state toxicology lab director (Robert Powers) testified about the tests and machine functions.
- Defendant moved to suppress (1) the Draeger machine reports under the confrontation clause (arguing additional witnesses were required under Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming) and (2) all evidence from the arrest, claiming Desso lacked authority to make a warrantless arrest as a peace officer.
- Trial court denied both motions; jury convicted Buckland of DUI and elevated BAC; defendant appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of Draeger machine reports violated the confrontation clause | State: live testimony from the test operator and an expert, plus instrument certification, satisfied confrontation requirements; machine data is not testimonial. | Buckland: Melendez-Diaz requires live testimony from multiple individuals (operator, calibration analyst, QA specialist, ethanol standard analyst). | Court held machine-generated data are not testimonial; production of operator and expert plus admitted certification satisfied Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming. |
| Whether raw machine data constitute "statements" subject to Crawford/Melendez-Diaz | State: raw printouts are machine-produced and not human "statements," so Crawford/Melendez-Diaz do not apply. | Buckland: printouts effectively function as analysts’ statements about test results and trigger confrontation protections. | Court adopted precedents holding raw machine data are not "statements" by a person and thus not within confrontation clause. |
| Whether Desso had authority to make a warrantless arrest under § 54-1f(a) | State: Desso was a special constable validly appointed under § 7-92 and thus had arrest powers; exhibit from first selectman established appointment. | Buckland: appointment invalid because town lacked requisite ordinances authorizing the first selectman to appoint constables. | Court held § 7-92 appointments do not require a municipal ordinance; exhibit showed valid appointment, so arrest was lawful. |
| Whether evidence foundation for machine reports was insufficient | State: adequate foundation was laid via certification exhibit and expert testimony explaining operation and reliability. | Buckland: challenged absence of additional foundation witnesses and calibration details. | Court found defendant had not argued insufficient foundation at trial and, in any event, sufficient foundation existed; claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (recognizes testimonial hearsay triggers confrontation clause)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (forensic certificates are testimonial; live testimony ordinarily required)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (confrontation clause bars surrogate testimony for analyst who made certification)
- United States v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225 (4th Cir.) (holds raw machine-generated data are not testimonial statements and confrontation clause does not apply)