Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the suspension of Kim Marie Wells's driver's license following a civil suspension merits hearing under 23 V.S.A. § 1205. The court held that the State's affidavit sufficiently established the Datamaster breath-testing device's validity and reliability under Vermont Department of Health standards, and that the defendant's theoretical challenge did not overcome the statutory presumption of validity.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court applied the correct burden of proof and statutory presumption when evaluating Wells's challenge to the validity and reliability of the Datamaster breath-testing method.
- Whether the State's expert affidavit provided a sufficient evidentiary foundation to establish that the Datamaster complied with Department of Health performance standards.
- Whether the evidence supported the district court's findings concerning the Datamaster's operational characteristics and the validity and reliability of Wells's test results.
Holdings
- The statutory presumption that compliant breath-test methods are valid and reliable arises only after the test result is admitted, and the district court did not improperly apply the presumption in evaluating Wells's challenge.
- The State's expert affidavit supplied a sufficient evidentiary basis for finding that the Datamaster testing method was valid and reliable and complied with Department of Health performance standards.
- Wells's generalized and theoretical claim that the Datamaster cannot capture alveolar breath was insufficient to demonstrate that the testing method was invalid or unreliable under the actual facts and circumstances of her case.
Key quotations
“The presumption of validity as set forth in the statute "arises only after the test result is admitted."” (682)
“Defendant's generalized claim that the Datamaster "does not, and cannot, capture breath that is alveolar in character" and is therefore neither in compliance with Health Department performance standards, nor "operationally valid," falls short of demonstrating that the reliability and validity of the testing methods and the accuracy of the test results are not there "in the particular case, given its actual underlying facts and circumstances."” (684)
Factual background
A state police officer observed Wells exhibit signs of intoxication, including stumbling, slurred speech, watery and bloodshot eyes, and failed field sobriety tests. After consulting an attorney, Wells submitted to a Datamaster breath test that registered .128% BAC. At the civil suspension hearing, Wells's expert challenged the scientific basis of Datamaster testing, while the State's expert submitted an affidavit explaining that the device analyzes expired alveolar air and satisfies the Department of Health's performance standards.
Procedural history
After a Datamaster breath test registered a blood-alcohol concentration of .128%, the State pursued a civil suspension of Wells's driver's license. At the final civil suspension hearing, Wells challenged the validity and reliability of the Datamaster and submitted an expert affidavit asserting that the device could not accurately measure alveolar air. The district court found the device compliant with applicable Department of Health performance standards and suspended Wells's license. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.