State v. Wilbert Longhofer
162 Idaho 525
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Longhofer was stopped for speeding; field sobriety tests and three LifeLoc FC20 breath tests produced .114, INF, and .116; he was arrested and later charged with felony DUI based on a prior felony conviction.
- The breathalyzer’s required 24-hour performance verification produced samples .073 and .070 against a .08 target; the .070 result fell outside the SOP’s ±10% tolerance, so SOP compliance was not met.
- Longhofer moved in limine to exclude the BAC results, arguing the device was not tested per the SOP and thus results were unreliable.
- The State presented an expert (creator of the SOP and calibrator of LifeLoc FC20 devices) who testified the device was ‘‘trending low’’ due to aging fuel-cell underreporting, that underreporting is consistent not elevated, and that he was confident to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that Longhofer’s BAC exceeded .08.
- The district court denied the motion, finding the expert showed the device would underreport (not overreport) and therefore the procedural defects did not prejudice Longhofer; Longhofer pleaded guilty conditionally and appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of breath-test results when SOP performance check failed | State: can admit results by expert establishing reliability despite SOP noncompliance | Longhofer: SOP noncompliance undermines reliability; results must be excluded | Affirmed: expert testimony provided sufficient foundation; results admissible |
| Whether State must prove exact BAC vs. that BAC > .08 | State: need only show test reliably indicates BAC above legal limit | Longhofer: procedural defects mean reliability not shown; expert’s testimony about actual concentration irrelevant | Held: controlling precedent requires showing reliability that test shows > .08, not exact BAC |
| Impact of device ‘‘trending low’’ on admissibility | State: underreporting trend favors defendant and does not overstate BAC, so no prejudice | Longhofer: underreporting still means unreliable and could affect reliability determination | Held: court found underreporting consistent and expert established reliability as to > .08 |
| Proper foundation when administrative procedures not followed | State: expert evidence (scientific certainty) can substitute for administrative foundation | Longhofer: failure to follow SOP cannot be cured without precise recalibration proof | Held: expert testimony satisfied Charan pathway; foundation adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Elias-Cruz v. Idaho Dep’t of Transp., 153 Idaho 200, 280 P.3d 703 (Idaho 2012) (test results evaluated by whether they show alcohol concentration above legal limit rather than precise blood alcohol amount)
- State v. Jones, 160 Idaho 449, 375 P.3d 279 (Idaho 2016) (affirming Elias-Cruz standard)
- State v. Healy, 151 Idaho 734, 264 P.3d 75 (Ct. App. 2011) (expert may be used to establish reliability of breath-test results)
- State v. Charan, 132 Idaho 341, 971 P.2d 1165 (Ct. App. 1998) (admissibility via expert foundation when administrative requirements not met)
- State v. Mazzuca, 132 Idaho 868, 979 P.2d 1226 (Ct. App. 1999) (administrative procedure compliance as route for admitting breath-test evidence)