Case Title: State v. Guidera

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-01-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Guidera  (96-607); 167 Vt. 598; 707 A.2d 704

[Filed 8-Jan-1998]

                          ENTRY ORDER

                 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-607

                       SEPTEMBER TERM, 1997

State of Vermont                }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }     District Court of Vermont,
                                }     Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
George C. Guidera               }
                                }     DOCKET NO. 341-3-96Wmcr

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

       Based on a conditional guilty plea, defendant appeals from a DUI
  conviction under 23 V.S.A. § 1201, contending that the Datamaster infrared
  breath test was administered incorrectly, and as a result, the test results
  are inadmissible as a matter of law.  We affirm.

       On the evening of February 9, 1996, a Vermont State police officer
  stopped defendant for traveling sixty-four miles-per-hour in a posted fifty
  mile-per-hour zone.  Upon approaching the vehicle, the police officer noted
  that defendant's eyes were bloodshot and watery, his speech was slurred,
  and an odor of alcohol emanated from his breath.  Upon questioning,
  defendant stated that he had consumed four to five beers that evening, the
  last one being two hours earlier. Dexterity tests were then performed, and
  defendant exhibited signs of intoxication.  Defendant submitted to an
  alco-sensor test which indicated that his blood alcohol content was .109%. 
  The officer then arrested defendant for driving under the influence and
  transported him to the state police barracks for processing.  As part of
  the standard DUI processing, the officer administered a Datamaster infrared
  test to measure the level of alcohol in defendant's blood.  The officer
  indicated on the DUI processing form that he began observing defendant at
  12:05 a.m., and the Datamaster printout indicates that a first subject
  sample was taken at 12:19 a.m. and a second subject sample at 12:22 a.m. 
  Defendant's first BAC result was .122%, and his second was .127%.

       On March 26, 1996, defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of
  the infrared breath test claiming that the results were invalid because the
  officer had not observed defendant for a full fifteen minutes before
  administering the test.  The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the
  issue was one of weight to be given to the evidence not one of
  admissibility.  Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere, and this
  appeal followed.

       Defendant appeals on the ground that the State cannot introduce a
  valid BAC because the arresting officer did not continuously observe
  defendant for fifteen minutes prior to administering the Datamaster
  infrared breath test.  Defendant claims that under Vermont Department of
  Health Regulations an officer must observe defendant for fifteen minutes
  prior to administering a breath test to ensure that he does not consume any
  alcohol, burp, belch, or vomit during this period. He argues that samples
  not taken in compliance with the regulations are inadmissible and must be
  suppressed.  See 23 V.S.A. §§ 1203(d), 1205(g)(4); State v. Rolfe, ___ Vt.
  ___, ___, 686 A.2d 949, 956-57 (1996).

       We need not reach the question presented.  Even if we assume that the
  first test was

 

  performed improperly, defendant does not claim that the second test suffers
  from the same defect.  It was performed three minutes later when it is
  undisputed that the officer had observed defendant for fifteen minutes. 
  The officer's affidavit states that he observed defendant for fifteen
  minutes without him burping, belching or vomiting, and defendant does not
  claim that he burped, belched or vomited in the interval between tests. 
  See 23 V.S.A. § 1203(c) provides that a preserved sample of breath is not
  required when an infrared breath testing instrument is used. However, a
  person tested with an infrared breath device has the option of having a
  second infrared test administered immediately after receiving the results
  of the first test.  See id.  Here, defendant chose to have a second breath
  test taken, and this second result, which was even less favorable to him
  than the first, was administered after a fifteen minute observation
  interval.  We do not find persuasive defendant's contention at oral
  argument that the results of the second breath test are for defendant's
  benefit only.  There is nothing in the statutory scheme which provides that
  the results of this test cannot be admitted by the prosecution.

       In reaching the conclusion that the second BAC of .127% was
  admissible, even if the first was defective, we stress the holding of
  Rolfe, "that the results of an infrared breath test are admissible if the
  State shows that the analysis was performed by an instrument that meets the
  performance standards contained in the rules of the Department of Health,
  and the instrument met those performance standards while employed to
  analyze the sample."  Rolfe, ___ Vt. at ___, 686 A.2d  at 957.  There is no
  requirement of "two consistent samples for a valid analysis." State v.
  Dole, 141 Vt. 493, 494,