Opinion ID: 1388024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the fifteen-minute observation period

Text: In substance, Wester contends that AS 28.35.033(d) was not complied with in that the breathalyzer test was not performed according to approved methods; and its results, therefore, are inadmissible. The qualifications of the administrator of the examination are set down in 7 AAC 30.030. Lt. Duley testified as to his qualifications and was subjected to cross examination; the court determined Duley to be a qualified operator. Wester does not here challenge Duley's qualifications, but centers on the specifications of 7 AAC 30.020, [20] seeking to demonstrate non-compliance with the 15-minute observation period of 7 AAC 30.020(2). [21] In arguing that the failure to demonstrate compliance with this section dictates the inadmissibility of the test results, Wester points to State v. Baker. [22] We agree with appellant and the Baker decision that compliance with the 15-minute observation period prior to the administration of the breathalyzer test is a requirement for the admissibility of the test results. We hold, however, that where substantial compliance with the 15-minute provision is established on the record, as here, a prima facie showing of the foundational fact necessary to establish admissibility is satisfied. Baker, significantly, was a first impression breathalyzer case in Washington. The court there noted that, since the breathalyzer was in its embryonic stage and its results were thought to be unreliable except under rigid testing circumstances, it would require prima facie evidence on each of four points in order to allow into evidence the results of the test. [23] In imposing a stringent 15-minute requirement for admissibility, the court was influenced by a number of factors: an obvious hesitancy to embrace the breathalyzer, defendant's own testimony that he had been taking and indeed had medicine in his mouth prior to the administering of the test and the possibility on the record that the observation period may have been only 14 minutes. While we do not wish to undermine the status of the observation period as a necessary foundational fact in the introduction of the breathalyzer test results, we do conclude that a rigid standard of proof of this foundational fact is unnecessary. [24] In Baker and Pruitt v. State [25] cited by Wester as supportive of a strict 15-minute provision, a confluence of factors dictated inadmissibility. Moreover, a more recent case decided by the Washington Supreme Court, State v. Moore, [26] suggests a relaxation of the rigors of Baker. Conflicting evidence as to whether a cigar was smoked immediately prior to performing the test was not enough to invoke Baker and hold the test results inadmissible where the factual effect upon the results of the test was not shown. Wester here has indeed demonstrated the factual effect of ingestion during the quarter-hour observation period, but there is no evidence that appellant had eaten or drunk (or corrupted in any other way the test results) within this period. Lt. Duley was questioned on the 15-minute observation period provision during cross-examination. He indicated that the observation is normally the responsibility of the arresting officer. Although Duley did not personally observe Wester for 15 minutes prior to the breathalyzer test in the instant case, it is inferable from the record that Wester was under adequate observation by the arresting officer for a sufficient period of time. [27] The mere assertion that ingestion was hypothetically possible ought not to vitiate the observation period foundational fact so as to render the breathalyzer test results inadmissible.