State v. Hobbs, 2016 NMCA 022

Tarrah Hobbs was stopped and arrested for DUI; Officer Frazier (SLD-certified on the Intoxilyzer 8000) administered two breath tests reading .11 after required deprivation and air‑blank/calibration checks.
Frazier testified he saw an SLD certification sticker on the IR 8000 and that calibration/diagnostic checks passed; he did not know details (make, model, serial, expiration) of the gas canister or who approved it.
Defense objected, arguing the State failed to lay foundation that the gas tank and the gas reference standard inside it were individually approved by SLD at the time of testing.
Trial court admitted the BAT results; the district court affirmed, finding by a preponderance that the gas reference standard was SLD‑approved.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding SLD approval of individual equipment (gas tanks/gases) need not be proven by the administering officer at the time of the test as a Rule 11‑104(A) foundational prerequisite.

Issue	State's Argument	Hobbs's Argument	Held
Whether the State must show the administering officer personally confirmed, at the time of the test, that the gas canister and gas reference standard attached to a certified instrument were SLD‑approved as a foundational prerequisite to admit BAT results	The State need only make the Martinez threshold showing that the instrument was SLD‑certified; officer testimony that the instrument was certified and that calibration checks passed suffices; individual confirmation of equipment approval at time of test is not required	The officer must also witness or present SLD documentation confirming that the specific gas tank and the gas reference standard it contains were approved by SLD at the time of the BAT to ensure accuracy	The court held the SLD Rule treats instruments and equipment differently; instruments require individual certification but equipment need only be SLD‑approved generically and used for calibration checks. Officer confirmation of individual tank/gas approval at test time is not a prerequisite under Rule 11‑104(A). BAT results admissible; reliability may be challenged on other grounds

State v. Martinez, 141 N.M. 713, 160 P.3d 894 (N.M. 2007) (threshold showing of SLD certification of the instrument is a Rule 11‑104(A) foundational requirement)
State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561, 102 P.3d 628 (N.M. 2004) (distinguishing regulations that are not "accuracy‑ensuring" for foundational purposes)
State v. Bullcoming, 147 N.M. 487, 226 P.3d 1 (N.M. 2010) (overruling on other grounds referenced in foundational analysis)
State v. Montoya, 126 N.M. 562, 972 P.2d 1153 (Ct. App. 1999) (calibration ensures machine is working properly for valid breathalyzer results)
State v. Willie, 146 N.M. 481, 212 P.3d 369 (N.M. 2009) (administrative regulation interpretation reviewed de novo)