Source: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/vang112213.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:31:17+00:00

Document:
A trial judge overseeing a DUI case properly excluded expert testimony that challenged the overall reliability of breath-alcohol testing machines, the California Supreme Court has ruled.
In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the court held that a defendant charged with driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more, in violation of Vehicle Code §23152(b), can argue that a particular breathalyzer machine used to convict him was faulty. But an expert witness cannot challenge the overall reliability of such devices since the Legislature determined as a matter of policy that they are reliable for purposes of evidential use in a criminal prosecution, the court said.
The case involved Terry Vangelder, who was pulled over by the California Highway Patrol for speeding and consented to take two tests using an Intoximeter Alco-Sensor IV, a handheld breathalyzer device. The device indicated that Vangelder had an alcohol level of 0.095 percent on the first test, and 0.086 percent on a second test administered two minutes later.
Officers arrested him and subjected him to additional breathalyzer tests at the county jail using an Intoximeter EC/IR device which indicated an alcohol level of 0.08 percent.
Vangelder was charged with misdemeanor counts of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Vehicle Code §23152(a) and driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more, in violation of §23152(b).
During trial, his defense called a University of Washington professor of medicine, Dr. Michael P. Hlastala, as an expert witness.
Hlastala testified that breathalyzer tests were “inherently inaccurate” because they worked on a false assumption that the alcohol concentration in one’s breath is directly related to the amount in one’s blood. He said that such breath tests were only an “indirect” means of determining blood alcohol levels and that even if the breathalyzer devices operated properly as designed, they could be impacted by a variety of psychological factors and would not produce scientifically reliable results.
The jury heard portions of Hlastala’s testimony, while other portions were offered in hearings outside of the jury’s presence to determine admissibility.
The trial court ruled that Hlastala’s testimony concerning the overall reliability of breathalyzers was speculative and inadmissible, but that he could still testify that the particular machines used in Vangelder’s case were not operating properly and that their results could be contaminated by “mouth alcohol” which dissolves into mouth tissues and does not reach the bloodstream.
The jury could not reach a verdict on the generic charge of driving under the influence, but found Vangelder guilty under §23152(b) of driving with 0.08 percent or more alcohol in his blood.
The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that Hlastala’s testimony was improperly barred and should have been allowed.
The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Hlastala’s statements were properly excluded because they were incompatible with legislative determinations that could not be challenged.
She further wrote that a DUI offense under §23152(a) carries a rebuttable presumption of unlawful intoxication levels if the jury finds the defendant has an alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more based strictly on blood testing, which would allow Hlastala’s testimony to be relevant in determining guilt. In contrast, §23152(b) makes questions of breath to blood alcohol ratios irrelevant since it specifically defines alcohol limits in terms of either blood or breath levels.
Cantil-Sakauye also said that in enacting Health and Safety Code §§100700 and 100701 in 2004, the Legislature effectively ratified administrative determinations and federal specifications for breathalyzers as well as an approved model list of such machines.
Cantil-Sakauye said that although Hlastala could hold “scientifically based reservations concerning these legislative conclusions,” courts were required to defer to the Legislature’s findings in this area regarding admissible evidence.
Saying the “fundamental reliability of federally approved, properly calibrated” breathalyzers used to enforce California’s DUI statute under §23152(b) had been “determined as policy by the Legislature,” Cantil-Sakauye said that the expert testimony in Vangelder’s case was properly excluded by the trial judge.
The case is People v. Vangelder, 13 S.O.S. 5916.

References: §23152
 §23152
 §23152
 §23152
 §23152
 §23152
 §23152
 v.