Case Name: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Benjamin D. Parrott, appellant
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1971-07-09
Citations: 187 Neb. 213
Docket Number: No. 37855
Parties: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Benjamin D. Parrott, appellant.
Judges: Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, McCown, Newton, and Clinton, JJ.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 187
Pages: 213–215

Head Matter:
State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Benjamin D. Parrott, appellant.
188 N. W. 2d 694
Filed July 9, 1971.
No. 37855.
James T. Gleason of Collins & Collins, for appellant.
Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Melvin K. Kammerlohr, for appellee.
Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, McCown, Newton, and Clinton, JJ.

Opinion:
Newton, J.
The defendant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Judgment was entered on the verdict and defendant appeals. The question presented is whether or not there was sufficient foundation to- sustain the introduction of evidence pertaining to a "breathalyzer" test. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
Tests authorized by statute to be used in determining the alcoholic content present in the body fluid of a person must be performed according to methods approved by the Department of Health. See State v. Fox, 177 Neb. 238, 128 N. W. 2d 576. A police officer testified in detail regarding the testing, preparing, clearing, and use of the machine which performs the breathalyzer test. He also stated that he had a certificate to operate the machine from the Department of Health, had been instructed in its use by Dr. Bernstein of Creighton University, and was experienced in using it. He was unable to say whether or not he had!' followed methods approved by the Department of Health, but stated he did follow instructions given by Dr. Bernstein.
Although the issue is a close one, as we view it, the record is sufficient. The witness did testify that he had followed the training and instruction received from Dr. Bernstein and he was authorized to operate the machine by the Department of Health. In addition, Dr. Bernstein testified that in instructing police officers in the use of the machine, he used guidelines set up> by the Department of Health. In brief, the officer was instructed in accordance with the methods recommended by the Department of Health; he followed the instructions received, and' in so doing, necessarily followed the Department of Health regulations.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.