State v. CharanState v. Charan
Ankur Charan appeals from his judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. He challenges the denial of his motion to exclude evidence of a breath alcohol concentration (BAC) test. Because there was sufficient evidentiary foundation for admission of the test, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
Boise Police Officer Snyder stopped Ankur Charan’s vehicle on suspicion of driving under the influence. Officer Snyder transported Charan to the police station where he administered a BAC test using the Intoxilyzer 5000. The test indicated alcohol concentrations in two breath samples of .15 and .15, well over the legal limit of .10,
Charan moved to exclude the BAC results from evidence on the ground that Officer Snyder did not follow the test administration
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Officer Snyder testified that during the fifteen-minute waiting period he was about nine or ten feet from Charan, doing paperwork, and that he could see Charan out of his peripheral vision. During the waiting period, another officеr brought a suspect into the room, which caused some commotion and may have blocked Officer Snyder’s view of Charan for “seconds,” but Snyder testified that he was able to observe Charan “for the most part.”
After hearing the evidence, the magistrate denied the motion to exclude the BAC test, concluding that the fifteen-minute observation requirement had been “substantially complied with.” Charan then pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. On the intermediate appeal, the district court affirmed the magistrate’s decision, but on a basis different from that stated by the magistrate. The district court relied upon the expert testimony of Officer William Bones, 2 who testified about the operation of the Intoxilyzer 5000. He stated that if a test subject brings alcohol into the mouth during the fifteen-minute observation period, as by burping or vomiting, the Intoxilyzer 5000 is designed to indicate an invalid sample, requiring the tester to begin the fifteen-minute waiting period anew. Because the machine did not reject Charan’s breath samples as invalid, Officer Bones was of the opinion that Charan’s test was reliable. Based on this testimony, the district court held that the test results were admissible because the State had laid an adequate foundation showing the test’s reliability even if Officer Snyder did not comply with observation procedures as directed in the Operator’s Training Manual.
ANALYSIS
On appeal to this Court, Charan challenges the rulings of both the magistrate and the district court regarding the admissibility of the BAC test. He points out that under
This Court has previously rejected the argument, now advanced by Charan, that stringent adherence to the administrative agency’s directions for test procedures is the
sine qua non
for admission of tests governed by
Subsequently in
State v. Phillips,
In the present case, Officer Bones testified that the fifteen-minute observation period for administering breath tеsts was originally required because the Intoxilyzer 3000, a predecessor to the Intoxilyzer 5000, could not detect the presence of mouth alcohol such as that which might be introduced by ingesting sоmething or by burping. Since mouth alcohol could produce an invalid sample, but dissipates within fifteen minutes, the fifteen-minute observation period was mandated to prevent inaccurate test results. According to Officer Bones, although this observation period is required in the Operator’s Training Manual as an additional safeguard, it is not really necessary to ensure accurate tests from the Intoxilyzer 5000 because that instrument has a “negative slope indicator” that detects when mouth alcohol is present and indicates that the breath sample is invalid. It was his oрinion that, because the negative slope indicator did not detect mouth alcohol in Charan’s breath samples, the test was accurate.
We agree with the district court that this exрert testimony regarding the reliability of the test presented an adequate foundation for its admission into evidence. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for us to examine the magistrate’s finding of substantial сompliance with the fifteen-minute observation requirement.
We caution, however, that our disposition of this case is not a holding that, as a matter of law, Intoxilyzer 5000 tests are admissible without thе fifteen-minute observation mandated by compliance with the Operator’s Training Manual. We hold only that the
uncontroverted
testimony of Officer Bones in this case provided sufficient foundation for admission оf the evidence. Where compliance with approved procedures for test administration is not shown, it will be necessary for trial courts to determine whether foundational standards have been met by alterna
tíve
CONCLUSION
Although we base our decision on a ground different than that relied upon by the magistrate, we conclude that the magistrate correctly denied Charan’s mоtion to exclude the BAC test results. Therefore, Charan’s judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Notes
. This statute has since been amended to reduce the legal limit to .08. 1997 Idaho Sess. Laws, ch. 158, § 1.
. Officer Bones testified that he was a breath testing specialist and taught that class for the Boise City Police Department. He was called as a witness by Charan to testify at the hearing on Charan’s motion in limine, and his quаlifications as an expert are not questioned on this appeal.
.
. At the time of the prosecution in the
Bell
case, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare was the agency charged with authority under