Court Opinion

ID: 9588798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:39:00.721271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:49:53.348658
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
In my view the prosécution failed to lay the foundation required under OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (1) (A) to establish that the Intoxilyzer 5000 with which defendant Caldwell’s breath was tested was operated with all its electronic and operating components prescribed by its manufacturer properly attached and in good working order. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
No certificate of compliance, in the form provided by OCGA § 40-6-392 (f) and as required by OCGA § 40-6-392 (a), was introduced in this case. However, the absence of the statutory certificate is not dis-positive since this Court has held that a failure to provide a statutory certificate for the test machine does not always require exclusion of the test results. Bazemore v. State, 225 Ga. App. 741, 743 (2), 744 (484 SE2d 673).
The State attempted to provide the required foundation for admission of the breath test results via the testimony of State Trooper Tackett, whose job it is to conduct periodic inspections of Intoxilyzer 5000s and issue the certificates provided pursuant to *50OCGA § 40-6-392 (f). Yet, Trooper Tackett had never conducted an inspection of nor even seen the particular machine upon which defendant was tested. Instead, Trooper Tackett was permitted to testify based on certain documents printed by the machine during its most recent inspection by State Trooper Webb, who was not available to testify.
Trooper Tackett acknowledged that the procedures she had learned from both the machine’s manufacturer and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation required that a test of the machine’s ability to detect the presence of the interfering substance acetone was to be performed periodically, and apparently Trooper Tackett had been taught that this test was to be performed twice a year or during every other quarterly inspection of the machine. Specifically, the acetone test of the interferant detector was to be conducted on the first and third quarter of the year. The fact that the inspection conducted by Trooper Webb had been in October, during the fourth quarter of the year, explains why the results of an acetone check were not included in the printouts reviewed by Trooper Tackett. Thus, Trooper Tackett had no knowledge as to whether an acetone check had ever been conducted on the machine in question.
Even though the evidence elicited from Trooper Tackett concerning the administratively created inspection scheme is somewhat incomplete, it is apparent that the Intoxilyzer 5000 was not to be deemed to be working properly and appropriate for certification in the absence of proof that the machine had passed the acetone check test during one of the two preceding quarters. In the absence of such evidence, no proper foundation was laid for admission of the results of the test of defendant’s breath.
This does not mean that multiple certificates are necessary to create a foundation for the admission of an accused’s test results. However, one must infer from Trooper Tackett’s testimony that inspection of the intoxilyzers is an ongoing and cumulative process of a nature such that each quarterly inspection viewed in isolation does not provide complete assurance that a machine has all of its parts and is working properly. This is the case because under the mandated procedure some tests are performed during each quarterly inspection while others are conducted less frequently. For example, just as the acetone test is only required during the first and third quarter inspections, the mouth alcohol test is only required on the second and fourth quarters. A radio interference check is conducted annually. Thus, in order to convey an assurance that the machine had all of its parts connected and was in good working order, the certification must be based on more information than is provided solely by the tests conducted during each quarterly inspection.
Records are maintained of the inspections and resulting certifi*51cates by both the agencies involved and by the inspectors such as Troopers Tackett and Webb. If the certification process does not involve some consideration of these records of past inspections then it would be theoretically possible to continue indefinitely obtaining certification of a defective machine, for example a machine which could not pass the mouth alcohol test could still be certified in alternating quarters, that is for one half of each year.
Therefore, I do not suggest that the State prove something beyond the required certification or conduct any additional tests. Instead, I maintain that reasonable inferences should be drawn from the evidence adduced at trial concerning the inspection procedure mandated by the Division of Forensic Sciences of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, but unfortunately not published by the Secretary of State in the Registry of the Rules & Regulations of the State of Georgia so that we might take judicial notice of this important information rather than relying on the sometimes fragmentary evidence introduced at trial. In order to give a reasonable meaning to the scheme described by Trooper Tackett, I would infer that before a certificate pursuant to OCGA § 40-6-392 (f) may be properly issued, the tests mandated for the current quarter must be successfully completed and the records relating to a particular machine must show successful completion of all mandated tests within an appropriate interval of time as well as the correction of any discovered defects in the machine.
An equal degree of proof must be required to establish the foundation for admission into evidence of the intoxilyzer results in the absence of the statutory certificate. To insure the accuracy of intoxilyzer results, the legislature has provided the foundation requirement contained in OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (1) and charged the Division of Forensic Sciences with formulating appropriate procedures. The Division of Forensic Sciences has clearly rejected any notion of exclusive reliance on an intoxilyzer to inspect itself via various diagnostic programs by mandating tests which involve the introduction of various foreign substances to the machine. The mandated procedure requires that the acetone interferant test be performed semiannually. There is no evidence that the acetone test had ever been performed on the Intoxilyzer 5000 used to test defendant’s breath. Under these circumstances, no foundation was laid for admission into evidence of the results of the test of defendant’s breath on the Intoxilyzer 5000.
I am authorized to state that Judge Eldridge joins in this dissent.
*52Decided December 5, 1997
Reconsideration denied December 19, 1997
Thomas J. Thomas, for appellant.
Keith C. Martin, Solicitor, Evelyn Proctor, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.