Opinion ID: 2354944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Portable Breath Test:

Text: Question: And you indicated you administered a portable breath test, a preliminary breath test? Answer: Yes, sir, I did. Question: And what did that indicate? Mr. Ward: Judge, at this point, I've got a number of objections, but I think it would be appropriate if I would voir dire the witness concerning that test. The Court: Any objection to that? Mr. Chenault: Go ahead. The Court: You may proceed. Further Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Ward: Question: Trooper, prior to administering this test on Mr. York, true or false, you did not have any specific training or special training or formal training in how to operate this unit? Answer: Are you referring to the preliminary  Question: The portable. The portable breath test that you used in this case. Answer: On the preliminary breath test, no sir. No formal training. Question: And you didn't personally check this particular instrument for calibration, you didn't have a Type-II to do that; is that correct? Answer: A Type-II does that check. Yes, Sir. Question: Okay. You don't have any personal knowledge as to whether you  you didn't do it; is that correct? Answer: I did not, no, sir. Question: Okay. And you didn't observe it being done either; is that correct? Answer: No, sir. Question: All right. And you understand, in connection with the administration of the PBT, that there are operating guidelines for using that particular instrument; is that correct? Answer: Yes, sir. Question: Okay. In fact, there's an operator's card which you brought to the hearing the last time when we went through that; do you recall that? Answer: Yes, sir, I do. Question: In this particular case, you contacted Mr. York at the roadblock at 1943 [7:43 p.m.], according to your report; is that correct? Answer: Yes, sir, that is correct. Question: And then, the time you've indicated that he was arrested was 1946 [7:46 p.m.]; is that correct? Answer: Yes, indeed. Question: All right. And so we know, then, that you did not have him under your observation for 15 minutes or 20 minutes prior to administering that test on him; isn't that true? Answer: That is correct, sir. Question: All right. And you don't have any understanding of how that instrument worked, internally, at the time that you administered it, either; is that true? Answer: Oh, no, sir. Question: And you didn't know if it was a fuel cell or a infrared-type devices; is that correct? Answer: I do not know the mechanical workings of the preliminary breath test. Question: Okay. Now a portable breath test is like any other field sobriety test, you use it to help develop probable cause; is that correct? Answer: Yes, sir. Question: Now, do you think  again, you're a reasonably prudent, cautious, trained police officer. Should such an officer know how to properly administer that test? Answer: Yes, sir. Question: Okay. And should such an officer have some basic understanding of how the instrument works, and how to utilize it and follow the operating guidelines for the use of the instrument? Answer: Yes, sir. Question: Okay. And in this particular case, you did not follow those operating guidelines; isn't that correct? Answer: That is correct, sir. Question: All right. And in your opinion, like any other field sobriety test, should an officer rely upon the results of an improperly administered field sobriety test when making a probable cause determination? Answer: No, sir. The testimony of the trooper controverts and discredits the Director's evidence for establishing probable cause for the arrest. While section 577.021 provides that a PBT shall be admissible as evidence of probable cause to arrest, the circuit court found that the trooper lacked the proper training to administer the PBT and that no evidence existed to establish that the device used was properly calibrated, maintained or even working at the time it was used. Consequently, the court found that any evidence as to the results obtained from this test was not credible. Because the evidence of the test's reliability was controverted, this Court gives deference to the trial court's determination on the credibility of that evidence. [15] The circuit court acted within its discretion when it ruled the PBT evidence not to be credible, and even assuming, arguendo, that the circuit court erred by excluding the PBT results, such an alleged error is harmless once the results were negated. Additionally, the trooper was unable to recall if her observations, that York had problems with his balance, with walking and turning, and with his speech, were made prior to the arrest, as is required to establish probable cause. The credibility of this evidence is further strained with only three minutes elapsing between the time York made contact with the trooper and with him being placed under arrest. The circuit court correctly noted that the only uncontroverted indicia of York's intoxication were the smell of alcohol, the fact that York's eyes were watery, bloodshot and glassy, and York's admission to drinking one or two beers. However, the trial court, in its discretion, was free to draw the conclusion that there was no probable cause based upon its assessment of this evidence and the officer's own equivocation of the existence of probable cause. [16]