 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Christie5/26/1988
the words "recommended by the manufacturer" in § 2.1(j)(3), contrary to a rule of statutory construction -- truly, an absurd result.
Finally, Defendant urges us that since the § 2.1(1) "wet bath of alcohol solution" method is the "primary" accuracy verification standard, while the beam attenuator method is a "secondary" standard, the § 2.1(1) method should prevail. We are not persuaded by this argument because the prime consideration is the reliability of the method utilized, whether the standard is classified as "primary" or "secondary." The record indicates that the beam attenuator is a reliable means of testing the Intoxilyzer for accuracy.
IV.
We must next determine whether there is evidence in the record
that the performance of an accuracy verification test with a beam attenuator is a method recommended by the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer. Our answer is yes.
The Checklist is in evidence as Prosecution's Exhibit B. Steps 12, 13, and 14 of the Checklist set forth the procedure to be utilized by the operator to calibrate the Intoxilyzer with the beam attenuator.
Police criminalist Milton Hong (Hong) was qualified as an expert witness regarding the Intoxilyzer. On direct examination, Hong testified as follows:
A This is a Operational Checklist, ah, which shows the 17 steps having been accomplished for the testing of this defendant.
Q [by Deputy Prosecuting Attorney] And, from your experience, what was that checklist derived from?
A This checklist is the product of a consultation between C.M.I [the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer] and our Police Department
to set up an acceptable D.U.I. testing program with this model intoxilyzer back in 1980.
July 2, 1987 Transcript at 64.
On cross-examination, Hong again testified:
This form [Checklist] was the direct product of consultation between C.M.I. and our Police Department, the design of an acceptable checklist, as I see it.
Id. at 75.
We find from the foregoing uncontradicted evidence that the use of the beam attenuator by Dawson when administering the breath test on Defendant was a method of accuracy verification testing recommended by the Intoxilyzer manufacturer. Consequently, there was strict compliance with the Rules regarding accuracy verification testing.
V.
Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred in suppressing the Intoxilyzer test results.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Page 1 2 3 4 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|