 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Christie12/29/1988
We granted certiorari to review the approval by the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) of the Honolulu Police Department's use of a "Beam Attenuator" in verifying the accuracy of a breath-testing device, an Intoxilyzer 4011 AS, employed to measure the concentration of alcohol in the blood of putative drunken drivers. A thorough review of the record and the relevant statutes and administrative rules disclosing no error, we affirm the ICA's ruling.
I.
Steven Richard Christie was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-4. He moved to suppress as evidence the results of the breath test administered shortly after his arrest on January 14, 1987 to determine the concentration of alcohol in his blood. Concluding that the accuracy of the testing instrument used on the occasion was not verified in strict compliance with applicable provisions of chapter 111 of title 11 of the State's Administrative Rules, the District Court of the First
Circuit granted the motion. The district court reasoned that section 11-111-2.1(l) of the foregoing rules compelled the performance of an accuracy verification test "during the actual breath test sequence of a subject," the test "must be the analysis of a suitable reference sample of known alcohol concentration," "the quartz crystal beam attenuator [used to verify accuracy in this instance] contain no alcohol," so " n the instant case no accuracy verification test using a reference sample of known alcohol concentration was performed during the actual breath test sequence of the defendant."
The State of Hawaii appealed, and the case was assigned to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. The ICA found "the district court focused narrowly" on section 11-111-2.1(l) in deciding the employment of a beam attenuator to verify the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer 4011 AS was not authorized under the relevant administrative rules. Invoking basic principles of statutory construction that "each part or section of a statute should be construed in connection with every other part or section so as to produce a harmonious whole[,]" State v. Davis , 63 Haw. 191, 196, 624 P.2d 376, 380 (1981), and "if rational and practicable, [a court should] give effect to all parts of a statute[,]" Camara v. Agsalud , 67 Haw. 212, 215, 685 P.2d 794, 797 (1984), principles which are pertinent also when administrative rules are construed, Mahiai v. Suwa , 69 Haw. , , 742 P.2d 359, 366 (1987), the ICA concluded the district court erred.
The appellate court reviewed the provisions of section 11-111-2.1(j), 11-111-2.1(k), and 11-111-2.1(l) of the Department of Health's Rules for the Testing of Blood, Breath and Other Bodily Substances for Alcohol Concentration, observing that the general requirements
relating to the " esting for accuracy or calibration of all breath testing instruments" are set forth in section 2.1(j), the department's recommended calibration testing method is described in section 2.1(k), and the accuracy verification test to be performed during an actual breath test is described in section 2.1(l). The ICA further noted subsection 2.1(j)(3) authorized the use of " ethods recommended by the manufacturer [of the testing instrument] or approved by the department for the testing for accuracy or calibration[.]" State v. Christie ,7 Haw. App. 368, 764 P.2d 1245, 1248 (1988
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|