TRUSTY v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2016 OK 94
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Kyle Trusty crashed his car early morning, was found unresponsive with alcohol odor and a beer can nearby, transported to ER, arrested, and consented to a blood test.
- Officer provided a sealed blood kit to a hospital nurse (Tam Nguyen Tran); officer observed the draw, sealed and logged the kit, and the OCPD lab tested the sample showing .206 BAC.
- DPS revoked Trusty’s license administratively; Trusty appealed to district court.
- At the district-court de novo hearing, DPS did not call the nurse who withdrew the blood to testify about compliance with Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence regulations.
- The trial court vacated the revocation because DPS failed to present evidence that the blood draw complied with the Board’s rules (e.g., venipuncture, site prep without alcohol, absence of anticoagulant use/hemophilia).
- Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the case and affirmed, holding DPS must prove compliance with regulatory procedures to admit blood-test results in implied-consent revocation proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPS must prove compliance with Board regulations for blood draws before admitting blood-test results in a license-revocation proceeding | Trusty: DPS must directly show compliance (nurse testimony or equivalent) — compliance cannot be presumed or shown only circumstantially | DPS: Substantial or circumstantial proof suffices; direct testimony from the person who drew blood is not always required | Held: DPS bears the burden to prove compliance with Board rules; absent such proof, the blood test is inadmissible and revocation cannot stand |
| Whether officer testimony that he observed the draw can substitute for qualified medical testimony about proper procedure | Trusty: Officer lacked medical training to testify to required medical conditions and procedures | DPS: Officer observation of the draw and chain-of-custody suffice to support admissibility | Held: Officer observation alone insufficient to establish compliance with medical/regulatory requirements for drawing blood |
| Whether inadmissibility of the blood test precludes revocation or whether other evidence can sustain revocation under §757 (other competent evidence) | Trusty: Without an admissible test, DPS cannot meet statutory prerequisites for revocation | DPS: Other competent evidence of intoxication should be considered to uphold revocation | Held: Majority: revocation vacated because DPS failed to prove required compliance; concurrence/dissent argued remand for consideration of other competent evidence was appropriate but majority affirmed vacatur |
| Whether precedent (e.g., prior cases invalidating tests for regulatory noncompliance) controls | Trusty: Prior decisions require proof of compliance; test invalid if procedures not shown | DPS: Some cases allow substantial compliance or different treatments | Held: Court follows precedent requiring compliance (cites Muratore and others); Bryant distinguished/not followed in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. State ex rel. Lester, 501 P.2d 1099 (Okla. 1972) (describes the purpose and due-process structure of implied-consent testing)
- Chase v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 795 P.2d 1048 (Okla. 1990) (identifies statutory prerequisites for DPS revocation)
- Muratore v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 320 P.3d 1024 (Okla. 2014) (vacated revocation where DPS failed to prove valid breath test/device maintenance)
- Bryant v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Pub. Safety, 937 P.2d 496 (Okla. 1996) (recognizes consideration of other competent evidence when test results are inadmissible)
- White v. Okla. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 606 P.2d 1131 (Okla. 1980) (officer may request chemical tests under implied consent)