Court Opinion

ID: 9575642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:15:35.010385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:36.093238
License: Public Domain

BIEGELMEIER, J.
(dissenting). Lt. Renli in answer to a question that this was an on-the-spot test and did not purport to be a scientific portion, testified it was what they called only a "field test," to distinguish between a person who had "nothing *38to drink" and a person who had "something to drink." This is of the same tenor as the printed item on Ex. 3 headed "Some Key Points" which states as to the interpretation of Decolorization Time: "Remember this gives an approximate % only. The chemist will determine the exact % for evidence." (Emphasis supplied)
It was an early step only to determine if there was alcohol present at all and an approximate per cent. The exhibit specifically stated the chemist would determine the exact per cent of alcohol for evidence.
To furnish this evidence, as required by both Lt. Renli's testimony and the printing on Exhibits 2 and 3, Falconer, the city chemist, in minute detail described the Intoximeter breath test and without objection the determination for alcoholic content showed results within one and two-hundredths of a per cent accuracy with direct blood tests; that defendant's test revealed an alcoholic content of .28% which could vary from .26% to .30% from a blood test. His written notations on Exhibit 2 merely duplicated his other oral testimony..The percentages were all greater than the "approximate" ones indicated by the field test color change.
The three cases cited in the majority opinion refer to the "results" of the test; here the result is in evidence without objection, and the objection is directed to the apparatus. The Davidson case quotation is dictum from a New York County Court opinion. In Jackson v. State, 1953, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 262 S.W.2d 499, that court held it was not error to admit testimony by an officer with two days' training in the use of an Intoximeter, (the same device involved here) as to the color change being indicative of the subject's intoxication, where as here, the Intoximeter was then sent to a laboratory for accurate testing as to result. The court after citing Hill v. State, 1953, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 313, 256 S.W.2d 93, said "The test here involved is entirely different." In 1961 that court adhered to the Jackson holding saying it "authorizes the testimony of Officer Shetler as to the results of the visual preliminary color change test * * Larue v. State, 1961, Tex.Cr.App., 352 S.W.2d 118.
*39Cases dealing with the Drunkometer and other similar devices for determining the alcoholic contents of the breath wherein the evidence was held properly admitted, some of which contain extensive discussions of the subject are: People v. Bobczyk, 1951, 343 Ill.App. 504, 99 N.E.2d 567; State v. Olivas, 1954, 77 Ariz. 118, 267 P.2d 893; State v. Miller, 1960, 64 N.J.Super. 262, 165 A.2d 829; Toms v. State, 1952, 95 Okl.Cr. 60, 239 P.2d 812; City of Wichita v. Showalter, 1959, 185 Kan. 181, 341 P.2d 1001; Omohundro v. Arlington County, 1953, 194 Va. 773, 75 S.E.2d 496 and 44 Minn.L.R. 673 (1960).
This was not a criminal action or prosecution. SDC 1960 Supp. 34.2901; City of Redfield v. Wharton, 79 S.D. 557, 115 N.W.2d 329; see also SDC 1960 Supp. 34.33; City of Sioux Falls v. Famestad, 71 S.D. 98, 21 N.W.2d 693 and City of Sioux Falls v. Christensen, 79 S.D. 633, 116 N.W.2d 389. It was for this reason in the last cited case the court was required to conclude SDC 1960 Supp. 44.0302-1, the presumption of intoxication statute, did not apply to city ordinance violations because the legislature expressly limited it to criminal prosecutions. A proper balancing of the rights of a defendant and those of the growing number who crowd the highways need not deter courts in accepting scientific advances as evidence.
To declare it prejudicial error to admit these exhibits seems to unduly circumscribe officials in enforcing the law on drunk driving when not bo determined in former decisions. State v. Guy, 25 S.D. 144, 125 N.W. 570; State v. Jerke, 73 S.D. 64, 38 N.W.2d 874. It seems to be the concensus of medical opinion that less than 0.15 per cent of alcohol definitely impairs the driving ability of all persons. See authorities above and article by Horace E. Campbell, M.D., in A.B.A.J. 46 (1960). I do not believe it prejudicial error to admit the exhibits in evidence and for that reason am unable to concur in the court's opinion.