State v. TaylorState v. Taylor
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Barry
Charles Taylor, charged with vehicular homicide,
The Department of Public Safety has set out the most recent rеlevant rules in Volume 11, page 260 of the 1985 Louisiana Register: “Blood drawn for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content therein shall have beеn taken with the contents of the ‘B-D Blood Alcohol Kit’ Number 4990 or 4991 ... (manufactured by Becton-Dickinson Division ...) or similar blood collection kit approved by the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. ‘B-D Blood Alcohol Kits’ or similar blood collection kits as approved will be made available to all law enforcement agencies, by Louisiana State Police.” See also 4 Louisiana Register, No. 10, p. 393 (1978).
Here Officer Barrios, who drew the blood, testified he used a Becton-Dickinson kit supplied by the Louisiana State Police, but could not identify the type number to be 4990 or 4991. Aрplicant argues the failure to prove which B-D kit was used bars admission of the test results.
*252In State v. Green, 418 So.2d 609 (La.1982), the blood collection kit utilized was not one of thе types set out in the Department’s rules, but an identical kit except that it contained liquid rather than solid anti-coagulant. Noting that the rule describing the type of blood collection kits is only a foundational requirement for admission of the blood test result that the analysis itself be perfоrmed according to the prescribed method, the Supreme Court concluded that “the statute does not prohibit introduction of test results merely because a different anti-coagulant or collection kit than that approved by the department was employed.” 418 So.2d at 613.
Herе the kit was clearly identified by Officer Barrios as a Becton-Dickinson kit although the outer wrappings with the type number had been discarded. The оfficer also stated that the kit used, just as the other “B-D Blood Alcohol Kits” he carried in the trunk of his car, had been provided by the Louisiana Statе Police. The kit utilized to draw Taylor’s blood was clearly one approved by the Department of Safety and disseminated by the State Police pursuant to the rules promulgated to insure reliability of blood testing.
Jurisprudence specifies that before the statе avails itself of the statutory presumption of intoxication arising from the chemical analysis of a defendant’s blood, it must show it has promulgated detailed procedures to insure the integrity and reliability of the chemical test including provisions for repair, maintenance, inspection, cleaning, certification, chemical accuracy and that it has strictly complied with the procedures. State v. Tanner, supra; State v. Morrison, 392 So.2d 1037 (La.1980); State v. Jones, 316 So.2d 100 (La.1975). The Departmеnt of Public Safety has in fact promulgated such safeguarding rules relating to aspects of maintaining and certifying the machines, the blood cоllection kits and the certification requirements for those who analyze the blood and maintain the machines.
The only requirement to be met by a person (not a physician, registered nurse or chemist) withdrawing blood is that he be a “qualified technician.” No permit or license is required.
When faced with whether a сertain individual met this requirement in State v. Welch, 468 So.2d 599, 601 (La.App.2d Cir.1985), writ denied 474 So.2d 1303 (La.1985), the Second Circuit looked to the dictionary definition:
‘Technician’ has been defined as ‘a speciаlist in the technical details of a subject or occupation or one who has acquired the technique of an art or other area of specialization,’ Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, Eighth (1976); and as ‘one versed in the technicalities of a subject,’ The American College Dictionary, (1966).
*253Using that definition the court concluded a cardiоpulmonary profusionist who had worked as a phlebotomist for five years after specialized training was a qualified technician. Seе also State v. Carlisle, 458 So.2d 1347 (La.App.2d Cir.1984), writ denied 463 So.2d 1316 (La.1985). In State v. Fortner, 478 So.2d 673 (La.App.2d Cir.1985), the court held a hospital technician whose job included drawing blood was a qualified technician under
We do not find thе term “qualified technician” to be vague or to require clarification through the promulgation of further rules. It is certainly possible for a сourt to determine whether a person meets the statutory requirement.
Here Officer Barrios had undergone training in drawing blood samples from the New Orleans Police Department Emergency Medical Technicians Unit. Through Os-chner Foundation he attended five weeks of classes in рhlebotomy with a class of nurses at the Jefferson Parish Vocational Technical Institute. After graduation he worked with other phlebotomists аt Ochs-ner Hospital, East Jefferson and Charity Hospitals on the rounds to draw blood samples for lab tests. He was also certified by the state as a phlebotomist. Officer Barrios was certainly a “technician” according to the definition. His training and experience clearly shоw he was “qualified” to extract a blood sample for testing.
We find no bar to the admission of the blood test results at trial and therefore deny this writ. This motion to suppress was properly denied.
WRIT DENIED.