Opinion ID: 2058047
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Department of Health Testing Procedures

Text: Based on the record before the Court, we are of the opinion that the trial justice properly deferred to DOH's interpretation of its own regulations and correctly rejected defendant's arguments that evidence of his blood alcohol should be suppressed. The law in Rhode Island is well settled that an administrative agency will be accorded great deference in interpreting a statute whose administration and enforcement have been entrusted to the agency. Cluley, 808 A.2d at 1103 (quoting In re Lallo, 768 A.2d 921, 926 (R.I. 2001)). This Court has held that while not controlling, the interpretation given a statute by the administering agency is entitled to great weight. Id. (quoting Berkshire Cablevision of Rhode Island, Inc. v. Burke, 488 A.2d 676, 679 (R.I.1985)). Here, for blood alcohol evidence to be admissible, the only requirement is that the equipment used for the test must be tested for accuracy within thirty days of the date that the police administer a breath test to a motorist suspected of DUI. See G.L.1956 § 31-27-2(c)(5). [7] According to DOH regulations, the [i]nstruments must indicate the same alcohol percent as the standard alcohol solution used in the test. DOH Rules and Regulations § 7.0 D.1. Minogue testified that notwithstanding any possible variation in the alcohol solution, the practice of the DOH is to assume that the solution is what it purports to be. Minogue further testified that this is standard DOH practice because we have no information to tell us otherwise. The defendant argues that the inspection of the breath test machine used in this case failed to establish that the solutions tested within the 5 percent margin of error required by DOH. We disagree. In Cluley, 808 A.2d at 1098, this Court held that the DOH's interpretation of the word same as within an acceptable range or within an acceptable variance    was not plainly wrong or at odds with the statutory requirement that the equipment be `tested for accuracy' during the thirty-day period preceding its use. Cluley, 808 A.2d at 1102, 1103. Similarly, the DOH is entitled to assume that an alcohol solution, procured from a reputable supplier, designated as containing a specific level of alcohol is what the manufacturer specifies, notwithstanding an acceptable potential range of error. All that is required under § 31-27-2(c)(5) is that a machine be tested for accuracy by qualified personnel, no more than thirty days before a defendant's breath test. Although the statute does not define the meaning of tested for accuracy, if a statute's requirements are unclear or subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, the construction given by the agency charged with its enforcement is entitled to weight and deference as long as that construction is not clearly erroneous or unauthorized. Cluley, 808 A.2d at 1103 (quoting Whitehouse v. Davis, 774 A.2d 816, 818-19 (R.I.2001)). The DOH's policy that the alcohol content of a test solution is the amount designated on the sample is neither clearly erroneous nor unauthorized. We are satisfied that DOH's interpretation of the regulation is reasonable and the trial justice properly deferred to this interpretation. The defendant also contends that one of the tests performed by Minogue was outside the acceptable margin of error for the machine to remain in service. Minogue testified that the tests using the 0.08 solution produced readings of 0.076 and 0.075. The defendant contends that the 0.075 reading is plainly more than five percent below the .08 percent purportedly contained in the standard alcohol solution. However, after a thorough examination of the record, we conclude that defendant did not raise this issue at trial and the issue is not properly before this Court. This Court will not consider an issue raised on appeal that was not presented to the trial court. State v. Russell, 890 A.2d 453, 462 (R.I.2006) (citing State v. Breen, 767 A.2d 50, 57 (R.I. 2001)). We pause to note, however, that in Cluley, this Court recognized that for 0.10 and lesser alcohol solutions, DOH defined the word `same' in its regulation to mean test results that came within 0.005 grams, plus or minus, of the amount of alcohol present in the tested solution. Cluley, 808 A.2d at 1103. Accordingly, an acceptable deviation for the 0.08 test is not 5 percent, but 0.005 grams and the tests performed in this case were within the acceptable range. During his testimony, Minogue specifically referred to the 0.08 solution and noted that the 0.075 result fell within the acceptable margin of error for the 0.08 solution. [8] We deem this a reasonable interpretation by the DOH of its statutory obligation.