Court Opinion

ID: 9614046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:21:52.72463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:53.453743
License: Public Domain

MEANS, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the result reached by the majority in deciding the first two propositions of error advanced by Appellant. The officer’s sworn report complied with the affidavit requirements of 47 O.S.Supp.1990 § 754(C), and gave the Commissioner of Public Safety authority to act.
I dissent from the conclusions reached in disposing of Appellant’s third proposition of error. Appellant has urged that there was insufficient evidence to show that the breath-alcohol test administered to him was in accord with the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence, as required by 47 O.S.Supp.1990 § 754(E)(1)(a). The detailed testimony of Officer Lowrey established that there was substantial compliance with the requirement of section 754(E)(1)(a), i.e., that the testing procedures used were in accordance with existent rules of the Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence, cognizable of judicial notice under 12 O.S.1981 § 2201(B)(1). The trial judge’s decision, after hearing this matter de novo, was correct and should be affirmed.