Court Opinion

ID: 9511067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:01:43.233624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:10.189758
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TRIEWEILER
specially concurring.
¶38 I concur with the result arrived at by the majority. However, I do not agree with all that is said in the majority Opinion.
¶39 To the extent that by relying on our decision in Weldele, the majority applies the entirety of its rationale in Weldele, I disagree with language found in that Opinion for the reasons stated in my specially concurring opinion to Weldele.
¶40 Furthermore, I disagree with the majority’s statement in ¶ 21 of this Opinion that the “ ‘State may take the opportunity at any time to establish PBT reliability....’ ” As I noted in my specially concurring *491opinion to Weldele,
The majority’s suggestion could result in prehminary breath test admissibility in one case where it is not adequately challenged on a scientific basis and exclusion in another case where, because of the superior quality of representation or the fact that greater resources are available for scientific or expert opinion evidence, the inadequacies of the test are more clearly established. This type of process provides no guidance to district courts, will lead to inconsistent results, and suggests that the basis for convictions will depend simply on the quality of representation provided to criminal defendants.
I would conclude that absent some evidence that the design or construction and reliability of the instruments by which preliminary breath tests are administered has changed significantly since our decision in Strizieh, that decision is binding on district courts in the future.
Weldele, ¶¶ 97, 98 (Trieweiler, J., specially concurring).
¶41 For these reasons, while I concur in the result arrived at by the majority, I do not agree with all that is said in the majority Opinion.