Opinion ID: 2613178
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sworn Statement of the Intoxilyzer Supervisor

Text: Park next contends that the sworn statement submitted by the intoxilyzer supervisor does not fulfill the requirements of HRS § 286-257(a)(2). Park complains that the sworn statement does not provide facts, as required by the section, for the ADLRO officers to make the required determinations. Park also claims that because the statement was dated several days before her test, there is no evidence that the intoxilyzer was in good working order when she was tested. HRS § 286-257(a) requires that certain documents and statements be submitted to the ADLRO. HRS § 286-257(a)(2) requires the submittal of: The sworn statement of the person responsible for maintenance of the testing equipment stating facts which establish that pursuant to section 321-161 and rules adopted thereunder: (A) The equipment used to conduct the test was approved for use as an alcohol testing device in this State; (B) The person had been trained and at the time the test was conducted was certified and capable of maintaining the testing equipment; and (C) The testing equipment used had been properly maintained and was in good working condition when the test was conducted[.] HRS § 321-161 (Supp.1992) directs the State of Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) to promulgate rules relative to the use of blood alcohol content testing equipment. See State v. Souza, 6 Haw.App. 554, 560, 732 P.2d 253, 257-58 (1987). Title 11, chapter 111-2.1(j) and (k) of the rules pertaining to breath testing equipment maintenance and repair, promulgated by the DOH, require: (j) Testing for accuracy or calibration of all breath testing instruments and related accessories employed pursuant to this chapter shall comply with the following: (1) The supervisor shall assure that testing for accuracy or calibration is done; (2) Calibration testing shall be done not less frequently than every thirty days and after every instance of maintenance or repair; (3) Methods recommended by the manufacturer or approved by the department for the testing for accuracy or calibration shall be employed; (4) Results of tests for accuracy or calibration shall be noted in a permanent record, as required by Section 11-111-6(a)(2); (k) The recommended calibration testing method shall use a minimum of two reference samples of known alcohol concentrations at a known temperature within the range of one hundredths to thirty hundredths per cent weight per volume [0.01% to 0.30% V/W] or higher known alcohol concentrations that are recommended by the breath testing equipment's manufacturer. The results of the analysis shall agree with the reference sample value within the limits of plus or minus one hundredths per cent weight per volume [+/-0.01% W/V] or such limits set by the director. Administrative Rules of the State Department of Health (ARSDH], Title 11, chapter 111-2.1(j) and (k) (1986). Finally, the sworn statement form for the intoxilyzer supervisor provides: 1. I am a duly certified intoxilyzer supervisor trained to maintain and verify the accuracy of Intoxilyzer Number _____ (Serial Number). This Intoxilyzer, used to test the arrestee, is an alcohol testing device approved for use in the State of Hawaii pursuant to Section 321-161 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. 2. The Intoxilyzer used had been in proper working order when the test was conducted. When a supervisor tests a machine and determines that it is functioning properly, the supervisor completes, signs, and dates the sworn statement form. A copy of this statement is submitted for every arrestee tested on that machine, pursuant to HRS § 286-257(a)(2), until the supervisor next tests the machine. Thus, the supervisor's statement is in effect prior to the date that an arrestee is tested. Park complains that because of the date differential, and the wording of the statement itself, the requirements of HRS § 286-257(a)(2) were not fulfilled in her case. ARSDH Title 11, chapter 111-2.1(j)(2) creates a presumption that the intoxilyzer machine is working properly thirty days from and after the date that the supervisor tests it for accuracy. Thus, although the date on the sworn statement precedes the date on which an arrestee is tested, as long as the arrestee's test date is within the thirty-day period covered by the sworn statement, the instrument is presumed to be working properly. See ARSDH, Title 11, chapter 111-2.1(j)(2), supra. Therefore, given a valid sworn statement, the burden is on the arrestee to adduce evidence that the machine was not working properly at the time of the arrestee's test for blood alcohol content. The requirements of HRS § 286-257(a)(2)(A) and (B) are satisfied by the first part of the supervisor's sworn statement. The statement that [t]he Intoxilyzer used ha[s] been in proper working order when the test was conducted presupposes that the supervisor tested the machine and that it was working properly, thus fulfilling the requirement of HRS § 286-257(a)(2)(C). We hold that the standard form submitted by the intoxilyzer supervisor states sufficient facts to comply with the requirements of HRS § 286-257(a)(2) and that the instrument is presumed to be properly functioning for thirty days after its successful testing for accuracy. In the instant case, the supervisor's sworn statement was dated April 20, 1992, and Park was tested on April 23, 1992, well within the thirty-day window. Thus, the requirements of HRS § 286-257(a)(2) were met.