 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lee v. North Dakota Dep't of Transportation1/14/2004
sts in driving-under-the-influence cases.
The applicable portion of the statute provides:
The results of the chemical analysis must be received in evidence when it is shown that the sample was properly obtained and the test was fairly administered, and if the test is shown to have been performed according to methods and with devices approved by the state toxicologist, and by an individual possessing a certificate of qualification to administer the test issued by the state toxicologist.
N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(5). "The purpose of section 39-20-07 is to ease the requirements for the admissibility of chemical test results while ensuring that the test upon which the results are based is fairly administered." Ringsaker v. Dir., N.D. Dep't of Transp., 1999 ND 127, 7, 596 N.W.2d 328 (citing Kummer v. Backes, 486 N.W.2d 252, 255 (N.D. 1992)).
[ ] In order to avoid lengthy testimony by experts, the statutory scheme requires proper documentation of test administration. "Absent testimony by the state toxicologist, the foundational requirement necessary to show fair administration of a breathalyzer test and admissibility of the test results is a showing that the test was administered in accordance with the approved methods filed with the clerk of the district court." Henderson v. Dir., N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2002 ND 44, 16, 640 N.W.2d 714 (citing Ringsaker, at 8).
[ ] This Court has previously held documentation requirements must be scrupulously met to ensure a uniform basis of testing and fair administration. Moser v. N.D. State Highway Comm'r, 369 N.W.2d 650, 654 (N.D. 1985). "Without strict compliance with the approved method, the scientific accuracy of the test cannot be established without expert testimony." Ringsaker, at 8.
[ ] In this case, the documentation requirements were not scrupulously met, because the approved method of administering the Intoxilyzer test was not admitted. Id. The district court reversed the agency because the hearing officer introduced documentation for the wrong test at the hearing.
[ ] We affirm the district court's ruling that documentation procedures were not met in this case. In Henderson v. Dir., N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2002 ND 44, 16, 640 N.W.2d 617, this Court reiterated the importance of adhering to documentation requirements in administrative proceedings:
Under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(5), the results of chemical analysis to determine blood alcohol content must be received in evidence if the test sample was properly obtained, and the test was fairly administered and shown to have been performed in accordance with methods and devices approved by the state toxicologist. "`Absent testimony by the state toxicologist, the foundational requirement necessary to show fair administration of a breathalyzer test and admissibility of the test results is a showing that the test was administered in accordance with the approved methods filed with the clerk of the district court.'" Ringsaker v. Director, N.D. Dep't of Transp., 1999 ND 127, 8, 596 N.W.2d 328, quoting Moser v. N.D. State Hwy Comm'r, 369 N.W.2d 650, 653 (N.D. 1985).
[ ] The standards set forth by the code and by case law were not met when the hearing officer failed to establish the foundation for introduction of the test results with documentation showing the approved Intoxilyzer method.
[ ] When the State fails to establish compliance with the toxicologist's directions, which go to the scientific accuracy of the test, the State must prove fair administration through expert testimony. Schwind v. Dir., N.D. Dep't of Transp., 462 N.W.2d 147, 152 (N.D. 1990). Absent a showing of strict compliance with the approved method, expert testimo
Page 1 2 3 4 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|