Opinion ID: 852837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Regulation Says Put

Text: The primary rule in statutory construction is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind.2001). The best evidence of legislative intent is the language of the statute itself, and all words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless otherwise indicated by statute. Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73 (Ind.2001). These principles apply equally to administrative regulations. Indiana Port Comm'n v. Consolidated Grain and Barge Co., 701 N.E.2d 882, 890 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). The instant regulation, of course, uses the word put when referring to foreign substances. The ordinary meaning of put is to place or cause to be placed in a specified position or relationship. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1849 (1993). The legislative history of the rule suggests that the department of toxicology chose the language purposefully. The proposed version of the rule read, The person to be tested ... must not have any foreign substance in his/her mouth or respiratory tract . . . 6 Ind. Reg. 2440 (1983). In adopting the final regulation, the department inserted put after have. 7 Ind. Reg. 340, 389 (1984). Guy's interpretation of the regulation (namely that no foreign substance can be in the mouth for twenty minutes prior to the test) is contrary to the apparently conscious decision of the department's experts. We come to this conclusion despite our decision in State v. Albright, 632 N.E.2d 725 (Ind.1994). We noted in Albright that the regulation requires a twenty-minute waiting period, and said that the subject may not have had any foreign substance in his mouth during this time. Id. at 725. The main issue in Albright was whether the police officer actually waited the required twenty minutes. Id. at 725-26. There was no discussion about the meaning of put. Albright 's precedential value on the point at issue in this case is zero.