Opinion ID: 2312839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Independent Analysis

Text: In DUI cases involving chemical analysis of breath, 23 V.S.A. § 1203(a) requires that a sufficient amount of breath ... shall be taken to enable the person, at his option, to have made an independent analysis of the sample.... Analysis of the sample for the State and the defendant are considered valid if done in accordance with procedures promulgated by the Vermont Department of Health. Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress the results of a breath test based upon a stipulation of facts entered into by the parties. The stipulation provided that a sample of defendant's breath was collected in the usual way, that is, captured in a metal (indium) tube which was crimped to create three separate units. The State laboratory, as is its practice, analyzed two of the three portions and obtained results of .154 blood alcohol content (BAC) and .145 BAC. At defendant's request, the third portion was independently analyzed, with a result of .14 BAC. As to the State's testing procedure, the parties agreed to the following: When the two (2) State test results vary more than + or  5% of their mean the State Lab discards the test results and reports no result.... The State's procedure of testing two (2) results is the required testing method and discrepancies of + or  5% of the mean are relied upon by State Chemists as an indication that the procedure has been significantly flawed and that the process and result should be invalidated. (Emphasis added.) [1] Defendant argued that he was provided with an amount of breath, only one unit, insufficient to permit a valid analysis of his BAC according to 23 V.S.A. § 1203(a) and the Health Department regulations. In other words, according to defendant, if the State must have two units to conduct a valid test, so must the defendant. The motion was denied. Although there is a superficial allure to defendant's argument, it does not withstand analysis. The reason for the test of the second sample is to check the reliability of the first. The integrity of the testing may be in doubt due to flaws in the testing equipment, the taking of the sample, or the sampling equipment. If two tests produce similar results, the validity of the results is relatively high according to departmental regulation. If the two results vary more than 5% of their mean, however, the integrity of the tests is sufficiently in doubt to warrant discarding the results. Defendant does not quarrel with the 5% rule, but insists that he is entitled independently to apply a 5% rule to two additional tests. It is evident, however, that such a procedure would in fact provide a third and fourth check on the first result. There is nothing in the statutes or regulations that might require more than a second validation of the test run by the State. Rather, we view the independent analysis permitted the defendant as a check on the integrity of the procedures of the police and Health Department, not as a validation or invalidation of any particular reading. See State v. Normandy, 143 Vt. 383, 386, 465 A.2d 1358, 1360 (1983) (independent sample provision ... solely to provide defendant with the ability to verify the results obtained by the state police chemists). [2]