TRUSTY v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2016 OK 94
Okla.2016Background
- Kyle Trusty was arrested after a single-car crash; officer observed signs of intoxication and transported him to a hospital where he consented to a blood test.
- A nurse drew three vials of blood using an OCPD sealed kit; the OCPD lab tested the sample and reported an average BAC of .206.
- DPS revoked Trusty’s license administratively based on the test result and the officer’s sworn report; Trusty appealed to district court which held a de novo hearing.
- At the district hearing the nurse who drew the blood did not testify; DPS presented the arresting officer, lab chemist, and others but offered no direct evidence that the blood draw complied with Board regulations.
- The trial court vacated the revocation because DPS failed to prove compliance with the Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence regulations for blood collection; the Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPS must prove compliance with Board regulations to admit a blood BAC test in a license-revocation proceeding | Trusty: DPS must directly prove compliance (e.g., testimony from the person who drew blood); compliance cannot be presumed or shown only circumstantially | DPS: Substantial or circumstantial proof suffices; direct testimony from the blood-drawer is not always required; DPS need only prove intoxication by preponderance | Court: DPS bears the burden to prove compliance with Board rules for blood draws; without such proof the blood test is inadmissible and revocation cannot stand |
| Whether other admissible evidence may sustain revocation when the chemical test is excluded | Trusty: Revocation rested on the test result; without an admissible test DPS cannot meet statutory prerequisites | DPS: Even if test excluded, officer observations and other evidence could sustain revocation | Court (majority): Because this revocation was based on an inadmissible blood test and DPS did not meet statutory prerequisites, revocation cannot be sustained; (concurring/dissent) remand could have been appropriate to consider “other competent evidence” under §757 |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. State ex rel. Lester, 501 P.2d 1099 (Okla. 1972) (explains implied consent scheme and role of chemical tests)
- Muratore v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 320 P.3d 1024 (Okla. 2014) (breath-test invalidity requires DPS to prove testing compliance; revocation cannot be sustained without admissible test)
- Chase v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 795 P.2d 1048 (Okla. 1990) (identifies statutory prerequisites for revocation: test/report and officer’s sworn report)
- Bryant v. Comm’r of Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 937 P.2d 496 (Okla. 1996) (trial court may consider other competent evidence under §757 when chemical test is inadmissible)
- White v. Okla. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 606 P.2d 1131 (Okla. 1980) (police may request chemical tests under implied consent)