Opinion ID: 1696327
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First to be considered is the question posed regarding the urine test results.

Text: In that regard Dr. Weland testimonially conceded a more accurate evaluation could be achieved if an individual were to first empty the bladder, wait a half hour, then give a specimen to be used in determining the blood alcohol content. Significantly, the doctor did not say a test based upon the first sample obtained would be inaccurate or lead to an erroneous chemical analysis. Similarly, Prouty does not contend the urine test evidence was totally inaccurate. Rather, he suggests we hold it inadmissible because a second specimen would provide better and more reliable evidence. Assuming, arguendo, a not the best evidence objection is here applicable, it still remains any deficiency demonstrated by Dr. Weland's testimony went to the weight to be accorded the test result rather than its admissibility. The only authorities cited by defendant in support of his position are: Defense of Drunk Driving Cases, Richard Erwin (Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., 1971 3rd ed.); Journal of American Medical Association, Vol. 122, No. 15, August, 1943; Attorneys Textbook of Medicine, by Louise J. Hordy, 3rd ed., 1964 Supp.; Nebraska Medical Journal, August, 1960, Vol. 45, No. 8. Even though these articles and books may lend some aid to defendant's view it is evident Code §§ 321B.3 and 321B.4 make no provision whatsoever for the taking of a delayed urine sample such as urged by Prouty. Furthermore, it is not for us to read such words, meaning or legislative intent into those statutes. See State v. Wedelstedt, 213 N.W.2d 652, 656 (Iowa 1973); Shelby Community Sch. Dist. v. Halverson, 261 Iowa 1329, 1338-1339, 158 N.W.2d 163 (1968); Iowa R.Civ.P. 344(f) (13). Admittedly, the argument have voiced by defendant might be appropriately directed to the General Assembly. See State v. Wedelstedt, 213 N.W.2d at 657. Under existing circumstances we find no basis upon which to now hold trial court erred in overruling defendant's not the best evidence objection.