 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Flaherty5/17/2005
t referenced in Rule 23.4.212(7), A.R.M.
Every defendant is entitled to the protection of the procedural safeguards that are contained in Montana's administrative rules. Fenton, 16. However, as we noted recently in City of Missoula v. Lyons, 2004 MT 255, 17, 323 Mont. 67, 17, 97 P.3d 1120, 17, Rule 23.4.212(7), A.R.M., requires that the breath analysis be performed according to an operational checklist, and the operational checklist has changed since Fenton was decided. Our review of the record indicates that this newer version of the operational checklist was in use at the time of Flaherty's arrest. We know this because the operational checklist from Flaherty's arrest, signed by Wakefield, is part of the record and was, in fact, submitted to us by Flaherty as a supplemental exhibit to his Brief. At the time of Flaherty's arrest, the checklist in use did not require that the subject be observed for 15 minutes, Fenton, 15, but rather required "no oral ingestion of any material," as we pointed out in Lyons, 17.
The operational checklist requires that during the 15 minutes prior to testing, no oral ingestion of any material occurs; that the suspect be instructed to deliver a proper sample; and that the suspect be observed during sample delivery. We held in Lyons that the operational checklist does not require that the test administrator keep his eyes on the subject at all times, but requires observation during the actual testing. Lyons, 15. In Flaherty's situation, it is undisputed that he was observed during the actual testing, and the evidence clearly demonstrates that he did not orally ingest any material during the 15 minutes prior to the Intoxilyzer test.
We affirm district court decisions which reach the correct result regardless of the court's reasoning in reaching the decision. Phillips v. City of Billings (1988), 233 Mont. 249, 252, 758 P.2d 772, 774. Although the District Court based its conclusions on the premise that the operational checklist, and by extension the applicable A.R.M., required the suspect to be observed for 15 minutes prior to the Intoxilyzer test, the result reached is nonetheless correct in light of the current requirements of the operational checklist. Thus, the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Flaherty's motion to suppress the result of the Intoxilyzer test.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court.
PATRICIA O. COTTER
We Concur:
KARLA M. GRAY
JOHN WARNER
W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
BRIAN MORRIS
|