Opinion ID: 3169985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: John Botson was arrested for driving under the influence. According to a breath test, his blood alcohol level was .141. The police officer informed Botson of his constitutional right to an independent chemical test, which Botson declined. But unbeknownst to Botson and the police officer administering the test, the breath test device had produced an error code related to one of its quality assurance mechanisms. Botson argues that his breath test result was inadmissible under the Anchorage Municipal Code, which requires breath tests to be conducted in compliance with methods approved by the Alaska Department of Public Safety. He also argues that suppression was required under the Due Process Clause of the Alaska Constitution because his ignorance of the error code prevented him from knowingly and intelligently waiving his constitutional right to an independent chemical test. But although the administration of Botson’s breath test may not have strictly complied with approved methods, Botson does not contest the district court’s finding that the error code had no bearing on the accuracy of the test. Accordingly, we agree with the district court’s and the court of appeals’ conclusion that the breath test result was admissible under our “substantial compliance” doctrine. We also agree that Botson validly waived his right to an independent chemical test because he had a basic understanding of that right before declining the test. We therefore affirm.