Trusty v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety
381 P.3d 726
| Okla. | 2016Background
- On Feb. 1, 2014 Kyle Trusty crashed his car, was found disoriented/unresponsive, smelled of alcohol, and transported to the ER; he consented to a blood test.
- Officer Helt supplied a sealed blood kit; nurse Tam Nguyen Tran drew three vials while the officer observed; officer resealed and delivered the kit to OCPD toxicology lab.
- Lab testing produced an average BAC of .206; DPS revoked Trusty’s license after an administrative hearing.
- At the district-court de novo hearing, DPS presented multiple witnesses but did not call the nurse who drew the blood; no testimony established compliance with Board regulations for blood collection.
- The trial court vacated the revocation, finding DPS failed to prove regulatory compliance for the blood draw; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding DPS bears the burden to prove compliance and the blood test was inadmissible without such proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trusty) | Defendant's Argument (DPS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPS must prove compliance with Board regulations for blood draws before using BAC results in a license-revocation proceeding | DPS may not rely on the blood test absent direct proof of compliance; test must be shown admissible | Substantial or circumstantial proof (and officer testimony) suffices; no need to call the actual phlebotomist | DPS bears the burden to show compliance with Board rules; absent proof, blood test is inadmissible and revocation cannot stand |
| Whether officer testimony observing a draw can substitute for medical testimony about collection technique and compliance | Officer lacks medical training to establish required medical/technical elements | Officer presence and chain-of-custody evidence are adequate to admit results | Officer testimony alone was insufficient to prove the technical/medical elements required by the Board’s rules |
| Whether inadmissibility of the chemical test ends the inquiry or trial court must consider "other competent evidence" under § 757 | Trusty: inadmissible test requires vacatur unless other competent evidence introduced; court need not speculate | DPS: license revocation can be upheld based on other circumstantial evidence without strict proof of compliance | Majority: without admissible test, DPS cannot meet statutory prerequisites for revocation; concurrence contends remand for consideration of other competent evidence under § 757 is appropriate |
| Whether a remand could cure the evidentiary defect | Trusty: remand cannot cure because no admissible blood test exists to satisfy statutory elements | DPS: could supply missing proof (e.g., call nurse) on remand to validate test | Court: affirmed vacancy, noting no evidence DPS could present on remand to cure defect in this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. State ex rel. Lester, 501 P.2d 1099 (Okla. 1972) (describing implied consent scheme and due-process safeguards)
- Chase v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 795 P.2d 1048 (Okla. 1990) (identifying two statutory prerequisites for DPS revocation)
- Tapp v. Perciful, 120 P.3d 480 (Okla. 2005) (administrative rules govern admissibility of implied-consent tests)
- Muratore v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 320 P.3d 1024 (Okla. 2014) (vacating revocation where DPS failed to prove a valid breath test)
- Bryant v. Comm’r of the Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 937 P.2d 496 (Okla. 1996) (remanding for consideration of other competent evidence under statutory provision when chemical test is inadmissible)
- Estes v. ConocoPhillips Co., 184 P.3d 518 (Okla. 2008) (administrative rules promulgated under delegated authority have the force of law)