471 P.3d 760
Okla. Crim. App.2020Background
- Julio Humberto Cardenas-Moreno was charged with DUI in Texas County, Oklahoma; after a suppression hearing the district court excluded the Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) evidence.
- The State appealed under 22 O.S. § 1053(5), arguing the PBT is a field sobriety test admissible under 47 O.S. § 11-902(N).
- The PBT at issue produced a non-numeric "failing"/estimate result rather than a specific blood alcohol concentration (BAC) number; neither officer nor prosecutor tried to admit a numerical BAC from it.
- The trial court ruled generically that "The PBT test is not admissible in Oklahoma." The Court of Criminal Appeals found no law supporting a blanket exclusion.
- The appellate court distinguished PBTs (used to estimate impairment) from statutory breath tests designed to produce a specific BAC under 47 O.S. §§ 752/759.
- The Court reversed and remanded, holding PBT results used as non‑numeric field sobriety evidence may be admissible case-by-case; courts must assess reliability and foundation before admitting opinions based on PBTs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a PBT is admissible as a field sobriety test under 47 O.S. § 11-902(N) | PBT is a field sobriety tool; § 11-902(N) allows field sobriety test evidence | PBT is effectively a breathalyzer and not a recognized field sobriety test; thus inadmissible | PBTs that estimate impairment without offering a specific BAC number may be admissible as field sobriety evidence; admissibility assessed case-by-case |
| Whether a PBT result purporting to show a specific BAC is admissible as BAC evidence | (State did not seek to admit a numeric BAC from PBT here) | PBT cannot substitute for statutory BAC testing and approvals | PBTs cannot be used to prove a specific BAC; statutory procedures govern evidentiary BAC testing |
| Whether the district court erred by suppressing the PBT evidence | Suppression was erroneous; blanket exclusion unsupported by statute | Trial court correctly excluded an unapproved device | Trial court abused its discretion by issuing a blanket exclusion; reversal and remand ordered |
| What foundation/reliability is required for opinions based on PBT devices | Field-opinion evidence permissible; foundation should be shown | Device not state‑approved and reliability unproven; exclusion justified without foundation | Concurrences and opinion require reliability/foundation assessment (scientific reliability under Daubert principles may apply); remand for further proceedings to develop record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hodges, 457 P.3d 1093 (Oklahoma Crim. App. 2020) (standard of review for suppression; abuse of discretion)
- State v. Hovet, 387 P.3d 951 (Oklahoma Crim. App. 2016) (faults in device approval affect weight, not necessarily admissibility)
- Anderson v. State, 252 P.3d 211 (Oklahoma Crim. App. 2010) (field sobriety test evidence admissible to support officer opinion of intoxication)
- Yell v. State, 856 P.2d 996 (Oklahoma Crim. App. 1993) (distinguishing physical-observation field tests from scientific presumptions of intoxication)
- Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319 (Oklahoma Crim. App. 1995) (expert/scientific evidence standards)
- Day v. State, 303 P.3d 291 (Oklahoma Crim. App. 2013) (scientific evidence admissibility principles)
- State v. Crawford, 68 P.3d 848 (Mont. 2003) (Montana decision treating PBTs differently; distinguished by Oklahoma court)
- State v. Weldele, 69 P.3d 1162 (Mont. 2003) (Montana ruling that PBTs cannot be used to prove a specific BAC but may be used pretrial for probable cause)