"In numerous cases, this Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals have addressed the requirements for admission of evidence of chemical tests for intoxication. For cases holding that no proper predicate was laid, see, e.g., Commander v. State, 374 So. 2d 910 (Ala. Cr. App. 1978), cert. quashed, 374 So. 2d 921 (Ala. 1979); Webb v. State, 378 So. 2d 756 (Ala. Cr. App. 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 758 (Ala. 1979); McGough v. Slaughter, 395 So. 2d 972 (Ala. 1981); Whetstone v. State, 407 So. 2d 854 (Ala. Crim . App. 1981); Moore v. State, 442 So. 2d 164 (Ala. Cr. App. 1983); Kent v. Singleton, 457 So. 2d 356 (Ala. 1984); Ex parte Reed, 492 So. 2d 293 (Ala. 1986); and Ex parte Curtis, 502 So. 2d 833 (Ala. 1986). For cases holding that a proper predicate had been laid, see, e.g., Patterson v. State, 344 So. 2d 543 (Ala. Cr. App. 1977), cert. denied, 344 So. 2d 547 (Ala. 1977); Estes v. State, 358 So. 2d 1050 (Ala. Cr. App. 1977), cert. denied, 358 So. 2d 1057 (Ala. 1978); Bagony v. City of Birmingham, 365 So. 2d 336 (Ala. Cr. App. 1978); Parker v. State, 397 So. 2d 199 (Ala. Cr. App.), cert. denied, 397 So. 2d 203 (Ala. 1981); Childress v. City of Huntsville, 459 So. 2d 1008 (Ala. Cr. App. 1984); Harper v. City of Troy, 467 So. 2d 269 (Ala. Cr. App. 1985); Ex parte Bush, 474 So. 2d 168 (Ala. 1985); Nagem v. City of Phenix City, 488 So. 2d 1379 (Ala. Cr. App. 1986); Brown v. City of Montgomery, 504 So. 2d 748 (Ala. Cr. App. 1987); Pate v. State, 512 So. 2d 138 (Ala. Cr. App. 1987); Jemison v. State, 513 So. 2d 47 (Ala. Cr. App. 1987); Baker v. City of Huntsville, 516 So. 2d 927 (Ala. Cr. App. 1987); Sanders v. City of Birmingham, 542 So. 2d 325 (Ala. Cr. App. 1988); and Seewar v. Town of Summerdale, 601 So. 2d 198 (Ala. Cr. App. 1992).

"In none of the above-cited cases, however, was the argument made that the rules shown to have been adopted were insufficient to ensure accuracy and reliability. Most of the cases pertain either to blood tests or to breath tests administered on the photoelectric intoximeter (P.E.I.) machine. Of the above-cited cases, only Baker and Sanders concerned Intoxilyzer 5000 ('I-5000') machines. Pate involved the question whether the evidence showed that the officer who administered the P.E.I. test had performed step 18 of the procedures for that machine. The P.E.I. was more complex to operate than the I-5000 is, and much of the litigation regarding it arose from the fact that it could be calibrated at the time of a breath test by the officer administering the test. Thus, in Bush, this Court held that it was not necessary to show that the person who performed monthly inspections was certified by the Board of Health, because any calibration performed by the inspector was superfluous, 'since the accuracy of the test results is dependent upon the final calibration by the administrator of the test, and not the previous calibrator.' 474 So. 2d at 170. Similarly, Reed held that there was no need to show periodic testing of a P.E.I. machine because of the final calibration made by the officer administering the test. 492 So. 2d at 294-95.

"By contrast, an I-5000 machine cannot be calibrated by an inspector or an operator, and if it gives inaccurate readings it must be returned to a manufacturer-authorized repair facility. Thus, while the procedures for operating it are much simpler than the procedures for the P.E.I., the necessity for ascertaining that it has given an accurate result in a particular test cannot be met by a showing that the officer administering the test has followed the operating rules promulgated by the Board of Health.