We affirm the trial court's judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. We view the evidence and all necessary inferences based on the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. In a driver's license revocation proceeding, the trial court is accorded wide discretion on factual issues and the conclusions that follow. When the Director makes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the driver to rebut the prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence. The failure to properly observe a suspect for the required fifteen minute period falls within the first requirement.
Cases involving procedural flaws in fulfilling the observation requirement guide our decision.
In determining whether the 15-minute rule had been satisfied, the court focused on the rule's purpose more than concerns about rote procedure. The test is designed to assure that the subject does not smoke, vomit, or place anything in the mouth prior to the test. Id. Holley testified that he did not place anything in his mouth, and nothing on the record evidenced vomiting during the observation period. Therefore, when the record shows that the subject has not smoked, vomited, or otherwise placed anything in the mouth prior to administration of a breath analysis test, the purpose of the rule is fulfilled. Cases analyzing challenges to the admission of breathalyzer results because of other types of procedural flaws look to the contaminating effect a flaw has on the accuracy of the test.