State v. Grenier
110 A.3d 291
Vt.2014Background
- Grenier and Harris were charged with DUI and moved to suppress breath-alcohol results from DataMaster DMT devices.
- Defendants alleged the DOH Commissioner did not properly approve the DMT under 23 V.S.A. § 1203(d) and related DOH rules.
- Trial court denied suppression and declined an evidentiary hearing, treating material facts as undisputed and resolving on legal grounds.
- Allegations included ongoing machine malfunctions and unprofessional DOH conduct; some internal investigations were relied upon.
- Key issues focused on the sufficiency of the DOH’s broad approval of DataMaster infrared instrumentation (not model-specific) and the adequacy of due diligence.
- Court affirmed denial of suppression and held the Commissioner’s approvals—viewed broadly as instrument class approvals—satisfied § 1203(d) and DOH rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing. | Grenier/Harris argue disputed facts about DOH maintenance undermine admissibility. | Grenier/Harris contend factual disputes require live testimony. | No abuse; no material fact dispute relevant to admissibility. |
| Whether DataMaster DMT was properly approved by the DOH Commissioner under 23 V.S.A. § 1203(d). | State contends approvals covered DMT via broad ‘DataMaster using infrared technology’ letters. | Grenier/Harris argue letters were insufficiently specific to cover DMT and lacked due diligence. | Approved; broader instrumentation interpretation valid. |
| Whether the DOH regulation’s term 'instrumentation' requires model-specific approval. | State maintains broader class-based approval suffices. | Grenier/Harris argue need for model-specific letters. | Broad interpretation permissible; does not require model-specific approvals. |
| Whether the DOH’s approval process was conducted with due diligence. | State relied on DOH testing and professional expertise. | Grenier/Harris claim insufficient scrutiny given prior machine problems. | Deferential review to agency; evidence supports due diligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rolfe, 166 Vt. 1 (1996) (validity threshold for breath-test results under §1203(d))
- State v. Burnett, 2013 VT 113 (2013) (defers to agency’s interpretation of regulations)
- State v. Zacarro, 154 Vt. 83 (1990) (deferral and standards in suppression review)
- In re Williston Inn Grp., 2008 VT 47 (2008) (interpretation of regulatory language; deference to agency)