Court Opinion

ID: 9794218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:01:23.994497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:00.565190
License: Public Domain

RIGGS, J.,
dissenting.
The majority’s position, carried to its logical conclusion, would make the regulations governing administration of Intoxiliyzer tests meaningless, insofar as they establish a *161threshold for determining admissibility of this kind of evidence in a trial. The trier of fact would be permitted to weigh the significance of any testing error. The majority labels the use of a test card a procedure “that simply record[s] the fact that the operator performed the correct procedure,” despite the fact that the test card is often the only evidence of the result of an Intoxilyzer test. If that is so, it is difficult to imagine what procedure the majority would find “affect[ed] the actual performance of the test.” As the majority itself notes, we held in State v. Roe, 95 Or App 477, 480, 770 P2d 69, rev den 308 Or 142 (1989), that the test for evaluating whether a testing error warrants exclusion is whether the error is related to “performance of the test or its accuracy as evidence..” (Emphasis supplied.) Surely whether a test card is clean and therefore clearly legible affects “its accuracy as evidence.”
The legislature authorized the Oregon State Police to approve methods for performing chemical analyses of a person’s breath. ORS 813.160. The rules are specific, and those who administer breath tests know or should know them. I see no reason why they should not be followed. I would exclude the results of the Intoxilizer test.
I dissent.