Case Title: In re Sleigh on Behalf of Unnamed Motorists Accused of DWI Infractions

Citation: 178 Vt. 547, 2005 VT 45, 872 A.2d 363

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-03-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Sleigh on Behalf of Unnamed Motorists Accused of DWI Infractions  
(2004-092); 178 Vt. 547; 872 A.2d 363

2005 VT 45

[Filed 23-Mar-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 45

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-092

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2004

  In re David Sleigh on Behalf of Unnamed     }
  Motorists Accused of DWI Infractions        }     APPEALED FROM:
                                              }
                                              }
                                              }     Department of Health
                                              }     
                                              }
                                              }     DOCKET NO.   None

                                                    Elizabeth R. Dycus, Chair

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶ 1.     This appeal stems from a petition filed by David Sleigh with
  the Vermont Board of Health (Board) challenging the Vermont Commissioner of
  Health's decision to authorize law enforcement to turn off the
  data-collection function of DataMaster instruments, which are used to
  calculate Breath Alcohol Concentration (BAC) in DUI cases.  Following a
  hearing, the Board required the Commissioner to reactivate the
  data-collection function of the DataMaster instruments and to establish a
  BAC Breath Testing Task Force.  On appeal, the State claims that (1)
  petitioner lacks standing to challenge the Commissioner's decision; (2) the
  Commissioner's decision was entitled to deference and should be upheld; and
  (3) the Board exceeded its authority in ordering the Commissioner to create
  a task force.  We do not reach the State's claims because we hold that the
  Board had no jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's notice and, further,
  that it was not an appealable decision.  Therefore, we vacate the Board's
  decision and dismiss the appeal.

       ¶ 2.     This controversy has its roots in changes the Legislature
  made in 1989 to update the process for adjudicating DUI cases.  1989, No.
  68 (codified as amended at 23 V.S.A. §§ 1200-1215).  Specifically, the
  Legislature created a civil infraction for DUI with a streamlined procedure
  and approved use of infrared spectroscopy for breath alcohol analysis.  23
  V.S.A. §§ 1203(d), 1205.

        
       ¶ 3.     Under authority granted in the legislation, see 23 V.S.A. §
  1203(d) ("The department of health shall use rule making procedures to
  select its method or methods."), the Department of Health promulgated a
  rule, specifying the approved methods for breath analysis.  Breath and
  Blood Analysis Rule § C.I, 4 Code of Vermont Rules 13 140 003-2 (1997)
  [hereinafter Breath and Blood Analysis Rule].  The rule delineates that
  "[t]he analytical instrumentation and procedures used for analysis of
  breath alcohol content for evidentiary purposes shall be approved by the
  Commissioner of Health."  Breath and Blood Analysis Rule § C.I.6; see State
  v. Rolfe, 166 Vt. 1, 9, 686 A.2d 949, 955 (1996) (upholding delegation to
  commissioner to approve machinery).  The Commissioner then approved
  analytical instruments, including the DataMaster for measurement of BAC
  through infrared spectrophotometry, and also approved procedures for the
  instruments' use as outlined in the Vermont Criminal Justice Training
  Council manual.  See State v. McQuillan, 2003 VT 25, ¶ ¶  10-14, 175 Vt.
  173, 825 A.2d 804 (rejecting argument that procedures in manual must be
  adopted through formal rule-making). 

       ¶ 4.     The DataMaster is a device that law enforcement officers can
  use on site to obtain BAC levels from suspects based upon a breath test. 
  The DataMaster measures alcohol concentration by calculating how a beam of
  infrared energy passes through the breath sample compared to how it passes
  through ambient room air.  If alcohol is present in the breath sample, some
  of the energy will be absorbed, and this loss of energy can be correlated
  to the alcohol concentration.  To operate the DataMaster, a law enforcement
  official must go through a series of steps to properly prepare and
  calibrate the machine.  

       ¶ 5.     The DataMaster includes a function for instrument data
  collection that stores in the machine data from previous tests and any
  errors that occurred during testing.  The stored data, covering up to
  seventy previous tests, can later be retrieved via a modem to an offsite
  computer or directly to a laptop on site.  If the information is not
  downloaded, the machine will begin to overwrite the recorded data.  The
  original intent of this function was to collect data for demographic and
  statistical analysis, but, due to lack of resources, the department never
  implemented such analyses.  In 1999, DUI defense attorneys began requesting
  the data for use at trial.  Primarily, these results are used to "raise
  doubts about the validity and reliability of specific BAC test results
  because of either apparent machine operator violation of testing protocol
  or machine performance anomaly." 

       ¶ 6.     The data-storage function of the DataMaster is not mentioned
  in health department rules or in the approved analytical instrumentation
  procedures.  Nor is it mentioned in the Vermont Criminal Justice Training
  Council Training Manual on the Infrared Breath Testing Device.  Although
  the record indicates that the function is in operation on DataMaster
  machines generally, the record does not reveal how this occurred.  There is
  no indication, for example, that the function is in operation because of a
  decision by the Commissioner of Health. 

       ¶ 7.     On May 19, 2003, the Commissioner authorized the Health
  Surveillance Division Director to issue a "Notice of DataMaster Function
  Termination," stating that "the BAC DataMaster instrument data collection
  feature will be turned off."  The notice stated five reasons for
  terminating the memory function, including that the data were not being
  used by the department and that requests were burdensome on the
  department's resources.  Regarding use in defense to DUI charges, the
  notice also claimed that "the data provided in response to such inquiries
  has not been considered in and of itself significant enough to exonerate
  the defendant of the DUI charge."  The record does not reveal who received
  this notice.

        
       ¶ 8.     Petitioner, an attorney for persons charged with and
  convicted of DUI, grieved this decision to the Board under the appeal
  provision of 18 V.S.A. § 128, asking for a hearing and, under 18 V.S.A. §
  129, a stay of the decision pending review.  The Board accepted
  jurisdiction and held a hearing on the merits.  The Board listened to two
  days of testimony and accepted evidence from both petitioner and the State,
  after which it issued a decision in petitioner's favor.  The Board found
  the Commissioner's decision-making process pertaining to the
  data-collection function of the DataMaster machines "to be flawed and
  inadequate," and concluded that, contrary to the Commissioner's assertion,
  the function was valuable to DUI defense.  The State appealed to this
  Court.

       ¶ 9.     We conclude that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the
  Commissioner's authorization to law enforcement to turn off the
  data-storage function.  In addition, we hold that this authorization was
  not an agency action subject to review.

       ¶ 10.     The authority of both the Board and the Commissioner are
  delegated by the Legislature and defined by statute.  Although we give
  deference to the construction of a statute by an agency responsible for
  administering it, statutory interpretation is a question of law, and we
  cannot affirm an unjust or unreasonable interpretation of a statute.  See
  Butler v. Huttig Bldg. Prods., 2003 VT 48, ¶  9, 175 Vt. 323,