264 P.3d 680
Idaho Ct. App.2011Background
- Wilkinson appeals district court’s affirmation of ITD’s administrative license suspension following a DUI arrest on Oct. 11, 2009.
- Breath tests indicated BACs of .165 and .151, with a notice of license suspension issued under Idaho Code §§ 18-8002 and 18-8002A.
- Two ALS hearings were held; the first when Officer Davis could not attend, and a second on Jan. 26, 2010 with Davis testifying; both upheld the suspension.
- The Idaho Administrative Procedures Act governs review, and the appellate court reviews the agency record for substantial evidence, not reweighing facts.
- The central legal issue concerns whether the 15-minute monitoring period before the breath test was adequately observed under ISOP procedures and Idaho law.
- The appellate court affirmed the hearing officer’s finding that the monitoring complied, based on video/DVD evidence and the possibility of using other senses, despite Davis’s back-turns during the period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 15-minute monitoring period properly observed? | Wilkinson argues Davis did not monitor the period in a manner approved by law. | Davis’s monitoring complied with procedures; the DVD corroborates observation and other senses were available to monitor. | Yes; monitoring satisfied under the procedures and substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. State, 147 Idaho 141 (Ct.App.2009) (clarifies purpose and sufficiency of the monitoring period)
- Carson v. State, 133 Idaho 451 (Ct.App.1999) (recognizes monitoring may be supplemented by other senses under observation standard)
- DeFranco v. State, 143 Idaho 335 (Ct.App.2006) (monitoring effectiveness and officer proximity; not onerous)
- Mahurin v. State Dep't of Transp., 140 Idaho 656 (Ct.App.2004) (noncompliance with procedures grounds for vacating ALS)
- Utz v. State, 125 Idaho 129 (Ct.App.1994) (observation may be supplemented by other officers' observations)