Court Opinion

ID: 9756665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:46:10.046904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:27.468041
License: Public Domain

Arnold-Burger, J.,
concurring: Unfortunately, as the majority points out, there has been a significant blurring of the distinction between motions in limine and.motions to suppress, particularly as applied to foundational requirements for admission of the Intoxi*944lyzer results. In fact, the cases are too numerous to list where we have ruled on foundation requirements for the Intoxilyzer raised through a motion to suppress. While I agree with the distinctions noted by the majority, it makes no practical difference in this case. Even if tire breath test results had been excluded from consideration, it would not have made any difference in the outcome of Smith’s trial.
The evidence was overwhelming that Smith was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to the degree that he could not safely operate a vehicle, which was one of the alternative charges in this case. When deputies arrived at the scene of a reported injury accident, they observed a white pickup truck that had been pushed down the tracks by a train. It appeared that the truck had driven around the railroad safety arms and into a stopped train. When the train began moving slowly, it dragged the truck with it. There was extensive front end damage to the truck. Smith was found passed out in the driver’s seat of the truck, with the engine running. Deputies tried to wake him by knocking on the window, to no avail. They finally reached in and turned the truck off. Smith had an overwhelming smell of alcoholic beverage coming from him. A large amount of alcohol was located in the back of the truck. Smith appeared to the deputies to be very intoxicated. His speech was slurred. His eyes were red and watery. He had trouble standing up, was very confused, and unable to find his driver’s license. One of the deputies had to catch him to prevent him from falling. When asked to perform field sobriety tests, Smith said he did not need to because he was too drunk to pass them. Although he initially denied drinking, he later admitted being at a bar and drinking two “big” beers. Had the deputies not given him a breath test, overwhelming evidence still existed to find Smith guilty of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol to the degree that rendered him incapable of safely operating a vehicle. So even if we assume, as Smith argues, that die breath test result was admitted in error, it would not have changed the ultimate outcome of the trial.