 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Alford1/7/2004
o-Sensor III as required by I.R.E. 702. If the state elects to proceed under Section 18-8004(4), it must show that the test equipment was approved and that the equipment was operated and the test administered in conformity with the applicable standards. State v. Nickerson, 132 Idaho 406, 411, 973 P.2d 758, 763 (Ct.App.1999). Section 18-8004(4) essentially creates a rebuttable presumption that approved equipment and test procedures are valid and reliable. Id. If the defendant believes the equipment or test procedures to have been inaccurate or unreliable, the defendant may seek exclusion of the test by presenting evidence to demonstrate its unreliability. Id. These procedures authorized by Section 18-8004(4) meet the foundational standards under the Idaho Rules of Evidence. Id.
As stated previously, the Alco-Sensor III was approved by the Idaho state police. Additionally, the arresting officer testified that the device had been certified; that he followed the procedures required for accurate use of the device, including conducting a calibration check within twenty-four hours of using it; and that he was certified by the state as a specialist and an instructor in its operation. Alford did not provide any evidence demonstrating the device's unreliability. Thus, Alford has failed to show that the proper foundation for admission of the test results was not established.
B. False Testimony
Alford claims that his due process rights were violated because the arresting officer falsely testified at trial that the procedures for operating the Alco-Sensor III were codified in IDAPA. Alford argues that this bolstered the officer's testimony, rather than showing the jury that he was not credible, in violation of his right to fundamental fairness.
The state may not knowingly use false evidence, including false testimony, to obtain a conviction. Sivak v. State, 134 Idaho 641, 649, 8 P.3d 636, 644 (2000). In this case, the arresting officer testified that IDAPA contains the operating procedures for using breath-testing devices. He clarified under cross-examination that the rules and procedures he was referring to were either covered by IDAPA or Idaho state police rules. The essence of the officer's testimony was that he had previously been trained and followed the prescribed police procedures for operating the Alco-Sensor III, whether they were contained in IDAPA or some other place. Alford has failed to demonstrate that the officer's testimony was false. His claim is, therefore, without merit.
III.
CONCLUSION
Alford has failed to demonstrate that the magistrate erred in admitting the results of Alford's breath tests. He has also failed to show that his due process rights were violated when the arresting officer testified at trial. The district court's intermediate appellate decision upholding Alford's judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Idaho DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|