 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Gunn9/21/2000
ter the test pursuant to a work-place drug and alcohol policy. The only tests that Buford administers are employee tests pursuant to employment drug and alcohol testing policies. She does not have certification from the Indiana University School of Medicine Department of Toxicology to perform breathalyzer tests in Indiana. In addition, she administered the test on a breathalyzer machine which had not been certified by the Department of Toxicology.
Buford gave Gunn two breath tests. The first resulted in a blood alcohol content of .101, and the second resulted in a blood alcohol content of .106. When Hemmerlein received the results of the tests, he determined that a criminal investigation was necessary. Gunn was subsequently charged by the St. Joseph Prosecutor's Office with 1) operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated resulting in serious bodily injury to another person, a class D felony; 2) criminal recklessness, a class D felony; 3) criminal recklessness, a class A misdemeanor; 4) official misconduct, a class A misdemeanor; 5) driving while intoxicated, a class A misdemeanor; and 6) operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated with .10% or more by weight of alcohol, a class C misdemeanor.
Gunn filed a motion to suppress the test results which the trial court granted after a hearing. The State dismissed all of the charges and filed an appeal to this court.
DECISION
The State contends that the trial court erred in granting Gunn's motion to suppress. We disagree.
The State bears the burden of demonstrating the constitutionality of the measures it used in securing information. State v. Farber, 677 N.E.2d 1111, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied. On appeal from the grant of a motion to suppress, the State appeals from a negative judgment and must show that the trial court's ruling on the suppression motion is contrary to law. Id. at 1113-1114. We will reverse a negative judgment only when the evidence is without conflict and all reasonable inferences lead to a conclusion opposite of that of the trial court. Id. at 1114. We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. Rather, we consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Id.
Drug testing of employees is subject to Fourth Amendment analysis. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 489 U.S. 602, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989). Therefore, the State's use of Gunn's test results is subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions.
In Skinner, railroad labor organizers challenged the constitutionality of Federal Railroad Administration regulations which mandated blood and urine tests of employees who were involved in train accidents or who violated certain safety rules. The United States Supreme Court found that the government's interest in regulating the conduct of railroad employees to ensure safety presented special needs beyond law enforcement which might justify a departure from the usual warrant and probable cause requirements. 489 U.S. at 620, 109 S.Ct. at 1415.
However, the Court repeatedly emphasized the non-prosecutorial function of the tests it was permitting. Specifically, the Court explained that the "FRA has prescribed toxicological tests, not to assist in the prosecution of employees, but rather to prevent accidents and causalities in railroad operations that result from impairment of employees by alcohol and drugs." 489 U.S. at 620-21, 109 S.Ct. at 1415. The Court further explained as follows in upholding the constitutionality of the regulations:
The possession of unlawful drugs is a criminal offense that the Government may punish, but it is a separate and far more dangerous wrong to perf
Page 1 2 3 4 Indiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|