Opinion ID: 2058047
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of Defendant's Test Results

Text: We note at the outset that because defendant has failed to establish the unreliability of his test results, his contention that DOH failed to comply with its own regulation is immaterial. This Court has held that the suppression of evidence is justified only where the deviation from `compliance with regulations established by the director of the Department of Health of the State of Rhode Island    [has] actually affected the validity of the test results.' Cluley, 808 A.2d at 1104 (quoting Snyder, 692 A.2d at 706). Therefore, before the test may be excluded, the validity of defendant's test results must be called into question, notwithstanding any deviation from the testing protocol. Id. Here, defendant has not met this strict condition precedent with respect to the reliability of his breath samples, but rather, has challenged the test results on the ground that the DOH did not comply with its regulations  an argument that specifically was rejected in Cluley. The defendant argues that [t]he actual test results obtained    on the night of his arrest are completely irrelevant to the legal question at issue in this case. He contends that [a]ny suggestion that the machine's inaccuracy or unreliability would somehow inure to the benefit of the defendant    is improper speculation wholly unsupported by any evidence in the record. These contentions, however, disregard our decision in Cluley in which we held that the results of Cluley's tests were not brought into question simply because the testing machine registered a slightly lower amount than the amount in the test solution. Cluley, 808 A.2d at 1104. Indeed, such a slight under-reporting in the machine that the police later used to test Cluley's breath would have inured to his benefit. Id. Simply put, here, as in Cluley, it is probable that defendant's blood alcohol level was slightly higher than reported by the breath test.