Opinion ID: 2616670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: STATE EX REL. DAWSON v. SOUTH DIST. COURT

Text: The second case before us represents over 270 DWI cases consolidated in Snohomish County South District Court. In each of those cases, the Defendants underwent DataMaster breath tests, the results of which were suppressed on both constitutional and statutory grounds. On appeal in Snohomish County Superior Court, the District Court's suppression orders were reversed and the DWI charges were reinstated. The Defendants appealed, and we review this case on certification from Division One. We affirm the Superior Court on all grounds. First we address the trial court's suppression of the DataMaster results on the ground that the State violated the Defendants' due process rights by failing to generate and preserve certain DataMaster maintenance and repair records. The records requested by the defense in this case are essentially the same as those requested in Matthews. We refer to our due process analysis in Matthews and, for the reasons stated above, we find the records are not material exculpatory evidence and should not be suppressed absent a finding of bad faith. See Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 102 L.Ed.2d 281, 109 S.Ct. 333 (1988). The evidence of bad faith presented in this case differs from that presented in Matthews, but it is equally unconvincing. First, the Defendants point to the State's mishandling of certain maintenance and repair records that should have been available to them in this case. The issue, however, of whether existing records contained incorrect information or were improperly withheld from the defense is completely separate from our inquiry here whether the State acted in bad faith by failing to generate and preserve the records requested by the defense in this case. The Defendants also argue that the State acted in bad faith because the State knew the exculpatory value of the records at the time it elected to no longer maintain them. They urge us to find that the State's change in record-keeping policy was motivated by a desire to obtain speedier DWI convictions by depriving defendants of exculpatory evidence. Our review of the record, however, reveals no indication that the State has deliberately hampered the Defendants' ability to defend their DWI charges. In fact, given the current breath testing technology, we find the records at issue here have little exculpatory value, and the State has acted reasonably in eliminating certain records to reflect the changes in breath testing technology. Because the previously used Breathalyzer machine did not possess the technological capability of monitoring its performance at each breath test, more records were previously needed to assure the machines were providing accurate breath alcohol measurements. The State Toxicologist has since exercised his delegated authority to approve an instrument and devise testing protocols that render the maintenance and repair records requested by the defense of little value. The DataMaster performs a control test of a simulator solution each time a breath test is administered, the results of which are printed on the breath test ticket. The breath test ticket, then, is a crucial document in determining whether the DataMaster was operating properly during a particular test, whereas the repair records requested by the defense would only be indicative of how a machine was functioning at a time other than while a particular test was being conducted. There is no substantial evidence that the State believes the maintenance and repair records no longer generated would exculpate the defendants. Rather, the evidence in the record indicates that the records currently maintained by the State provide adequate documentation of the reliability of the DataMaster machines. We find no due process violation. Next, we address the District Court's suppression of the breath test results under CrRLJ 6.13(c). CrRLJ 6.13 governs the admissibility of certain documents in criminal prosecutions and under section (c), the State may use a certificate instead of live testimony to establish that the breath test machine performing the test was examined, tested, and found to be in working order by a technician. CrRLJ 6.13(c) provides in pertinent part: (1) ... In the absence of a request to produce [a state technician or expert witness] ..., certificates [stating that the breath test machine was in working order] are admissible in lieu of a state expert witness in any [DWI] proceeding.... (2) ... If the technician determines that ... a BAC Verifier DataMaster instrument is not in proper working order at the time of examination, the technician shall [certify that the machine was not in proper working order and certify the date it was repaired]. (3) ... The clerk of each court of limited jurisdiction shall maintain the certificates as a public record. Subsections (1) and (2) include sample forms to be filled out by the state technicians inspecting the machines. The District Court interpreted this rule as placing an affirmative duty on the State to fill out and file a certificate of nonworking order each time a DataMaster is examined and found to be in need of repair. Because the State could not produce CrRLJ 6.13(c)(2) certificates on the DataMasters used to test the Defendants in this case, the District Court suppressed the results of breath tests performed by the DataMasters. We find, however, that CrRLJ 6.13(c)(2) certificates have been rendered somewhat superfluous and that the State's failure to file them should not result in suppression. Therefore, we hold the District Court's suppression of the breath tests on this ground is in error. The defense agrees that certificates of working order under section (c)(1) are clearly discretionary and need only be used when there is no live testimony. The defense asserts, however, that the language of section (c)(2) requires the State to file certificates of nonworking order regardless of whether the State plans to use live testimony at trial. We cannot agree with this interpretation. Nowhere in CrRLJ 6.13(c) is the State expressly directed to file certificates of nonworking order each time a breath test machine needs to be repaired. Rather, section (c)(2) directs an inspecting technician to fill out a form and certify when the malfunctioning machine was repaired, and section (c)(3) directs the clerk of the court to maintain the certificates as a public record. The rule is ambiguous as to whether the section (c)(2) certificates need only be filed when used in lieu of live testimony as the section (c)(1) certificates. [8, 9] Court rules are interpreted as if drafted by the Legislature. State v. Brown, 111 Wn.2d 124, 154, 761 P.2d 588 (1988), adhered to on rehearing, 113 Wn.2d 520, 782 P.2d 1013, 787 P.2d 906, 80 A.L.R.4th 989 (1989). We must construe court rules consistent with their purpose. See PUD 1 v. WPPSS, 104 Wn.2d 353, 369, 705 P.2d 1195 (1985). Accordingly, the spirit and intent of the rule should take precedence over a strained and unlikely interpretation. See Morris v. Blaker, 118 Wn.2d 133, 143, 821 P.2d 482 (1992). [10] CrRLJ 6.13(c) was adopted when the former WAC 448-12-010 was in effect. Under former WAC 448-12-010 to -020, proper working order of the Breathalyzer machines was determined through examination and certification of the Breathalyzers every 3 months. We find that CrRLJ 6.13(c) was clearly intended to interact with the WAC certification requirement and provide a uniform standard by which documentation of these certification inspections could be deemed admissible in court. Under this view, the use of CrRLJ 6.13(c)(2) certificates, like the use of section (c)(1) certificates, would be entirely discretionary. The Defendants, however, cite a CrRLJ 6.13 task force comment that may indicate an additional purpose of section (c)(2) certificates was to provide notice to defendants that a machine was malfunctioning during a specific period of time. Even if notification was the original intent of the rule, however, such notice is no longer needed under the current breath testing program. At the time CrRLJ 6.13(c) was drafted, breath alcohol analysis was performed by the Breathalyzer machines. Former WAC 448-12 required Breathalyzer control test results to be recorded only once every 3 months during the certification process to determine the proper working order of the Breathalyzer. WAC 448-12 has since been repealed and replaced with WAC 448-13, under which the proper working order of the DataMaster is determined and recorded at the time of each breath test. WAC 448-13-060. The certification requirement has been dropped and use of CrRLJ 6.13(c) certificates recommended but not required as part of the annual QAP inspection of the DataMasters under WAC 448-13-010. We refuse to adopt the District Court's strained conclusion that the State's failure to file CrRLJ 6.13(c)(2) certificates should result in the dismissal of all DWI cases. Given the breath testing protocol and procedure currently in place, we cannot say that the Defendants have been prejudiced by the lack of the section (c)(2) certificates in this case. Considering the initial purposes of CrRLJ 6.13(c)(2) certificates of nonworking order and the evolution of our state's breath testing program, we find the District Court's interpretation violates the spirit and intent of CrRLJ 6.13(c)(2). Therefore, we hold that the State's failure to file a certificate of nonworking order does not require suppression of the breath test results. We next examine the Defendants' argument that their breath tests were correctly suppressed by the trial court because the tests were conducted on DataMasters operating with software that was improperly authorized by the State Toxicologist. The Defendants challenge the Toxicologist's approval of the DataMaster software as arbitrary and capricious, alleging the tests performed by the Toxicologist on the software before approval were inadequate. We disagree. [11, 12] Administrative action is arbitrary and capricious only when it is willful and unreasoning or taken without consideration and in disregard of the facts. See State v. Ford, 110 Wn.2d 827, 830-31, 755 P.2d 806 (1988) (holding the toxicologist's initial approval of the DataMaster machine was not arbitrary and capricious). A regulation that is authorized and consistent with the authorizing statute is presumed valid, and the party attacking the regulation has the burden of rebutting this presumption. Ford, 110 Wn.2d at 831-32. Two statutes are relevant. First, in former RCW 46.61.502(1), the Legislature has determined that a person is guilty of the crime of DWI while [t]he person has 0.10 grams or more of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath, as shown by analysis of the person's breath made under RCW 46.61.506 .... Second, in RCW 46.61.506(3), the Legislature has delegated to the State Toxicologist the responsibility for approving methods for performing the breath analysis and determining a valid breath test. [13] As directed by the Legislature, the Toxicologist approved the software currently used in the DataMaster machines. While the Defendants point to weaknesses in the procedures used by the Toxicologist when he was testing the software, the critical fact remains that he did, in fact, approve the software. Cf. State v. Straka, 116 Wn.2d 859, 874, 810 P.2d 888 (1991). We find the Toxicologist's approval of the software is consistent with the authorizing statute. Further, our review of the record reveals the software is currently performing accurate and reliable chemical breath analysis. The Defendants fail to demonstrate his approval of the DataMaster software rises to the level of arbitrary and capricious action. [14] Also pursuant to RCW 46.61.506(3), the Toxicologist has approved regulations and protocols which must be followed in order for a breath test to be considered valid. See WAC 448-13. Without citation to authority, the Defendants contend that these regulations violate both the confrontation clause and separation of powers principles. These arguments have no merit. Again, the Toxicologist has developed Washington's breath testing program and has promulgated WAC 448-13 at the direction of the Legislature. These regulations do not unconstitutionally hamper the defendant's ability to attack the accuracy and reliability of the evidence at trial, nor do they limit the court's ability to evaluate the admissibility of evidence. The trial court retains the responsibility of determining if the State has met its burden of establishing the foundational requirements for admissibility under State v. Baker, 56 Wn.2d 846, 355 P.2d 806 (1960). Finally, we reject the Defendants' assertion that the DataMaster breath test should be suppressed because the Toxicologist and the State Patrol did not comply with RCW 42.17.290, Washington's public records act. The record contains no evidence that the Defendants have pursued an appropriate remedy under the statute. See RCW 42.17.340. This issue is not properly before the court. For the reasons stated above, the Superior Court's decision to reinstate the DWI charges is affirmed.