State v. Relyea
288 P.3d 278
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Police received tip of an intoxicated driver; Relyea arrested after short pursuit and mouth inspection performed under Baker; Relyea tested with Intoxilyzer 8000 at 8:28 p.m. yielding 0.237 BAC; State sought to admit results despite alleged insufficient 15-minute observation; trial court suppressed under Vialpando reasoning; State sought to supplement record with expert testimony; multiple hearings enlarged the record; ultimately the court suppressed the Intoxilyzer results and the State appealed; the majority reversed and remanded addressing Baker, Vialpando, and due process issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the sixteen-minute continuous observation satisfy Baker and Vialpando? | Relyea argues Baker requires 15 minutes with uninterrupted observation and mouth checks; observation during ride plus at station is inadequate. | State contends Intoxilyzer observation for sixteen minutes after arrival satisfies Baker and Vialpando due to detector and no mouth alcohol present. | Yes; the sixteen-minute observation satisfies Vialpando, Baker is satisfied. |
| Was the trial court properly allowed to reopen the record and admit new evidence on Baker issues? | Relyea contends reopening was improper and violated due process by introducing off-topic evidence. | State argues court has broad discretion to reopen to ensure full presentation of relevant evidence and that it served justice. | The court acted within its discretion to reopen/admit new evidence. |
| Was the Baker observation issue properly preserved for appeal? | Relyea claims the issue was not properly raised before the trial court. | State contends issue was preserved through trial court rulings and subsequent proceedings. | Issue preserved for appeal. |
| Did admission of the additional evidence violate due process or fairness? | Dissent argues due process was violated by emphasis on Offer of Proof Proceedings and shifting purpose. | Majority finds due process not violated given notice and opportunities to be heard. | No due process violation; proceedings were consistent with due process. |
| Should the trial court’s continued reliance on Baker be abandoned due to technological changes? | State argues Baker obsolete for modern Intoxilyzer 8000; obviates 15-minute rule. | State and majority treat Vialpando as applying to Intoxilyzer; no automatic abolition of Baker. | Vialpando applies; observation standard satisfied; Baker not required to be abandoned. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 56 Wash.2d 846 (Wash. 1960) (foundation requirements for Breathalyzer results (not Intoxilyzer))
- State v. Vialpando, 2004 UT App 95 (Utah App. 2004) (three Baker-like requirements applied to Intoxilyzer results; observation period needed)
- Salt Lake City v. Womack, 747 P.2d 1039 (Utah 1987) (precedent cited for Baker analysis)
- State v. Charam, 971 P.2d 1165 (Idaho App. 1998) (discusses observation period reasoning across jurisdictions)
- State v. Bozung, 245 P.3d 739 (Utah 2011) (abuse of discretion standards for reopening evidence; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Gardner, 967 P.2d 465 (N.M. 1998) (purpose of observation period to ensure mouth is clear and alcohol dissipates)