Opinion ID: 2264505
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: District Court's Requiring Possession of New Certificate at Time of Breath Test

Text: Finally, the State argues that the district court placed too high an evidentiary burden on the State by requiring the LPD to possess the new, reissued certificate at the time the breath test was administered on Ernesti. Although the LPD had possession of the January 15, 2008, certificate (granting certification through December 31, 2008), the district court did not consider the certificate to be sufficient in light of the enactment of the new regulations on March 14, 2008. Likewise, the reissued certificate was deemed to be insufficient, in part because it was issued after Ernesti's July 2008 breath test and backdated to March 14, 2008 (granting certification through December 31, 2008). Because of the savings clause and prospective application rationale we have applied, this issue is rendered moot. So, too, are the parties' arguments regarding the effectiveness of the backdated certificate. In conclusion, we find that the district court erred in applying the new administrative regulations to this case and in failing to recognize the continued validity of the January 2008 certificate. Consequently, the LPD correctly possessed a valid certificate for the device used to administer the breath alcohol test to Ernesti, a certificate that was issued pursuant to the administrative regulations in effect at the time of certification. The district court erred in concluding otherwise. The breath test result should not have been suppressed on this basis. Reversed and remanded.