Miller v. Motor Vehicle Div., Dept. of Revenue
| Decision Date | 25 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84CA1162,84CA1162 |
| Citation | 706 P.2d 10 |
| Parties | Fred MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
No appearance for plaintiff-appellee.
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Steven M. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, Motor Vehicle Division of the Colorado Department of Revenue (Division), appeals the trial court judgment reversing its revocation of the driving license of plaintiff, Fred Miller. The Division argues that the trial court erred in finding that the requirements of due process were violated because the hearing officer indulged a presumption of validity of blood alcohol test results and, thus, did not require sufficient foundation before admitting those results. We reverse.
Following his arrest on a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, Miller agreed to submit to a blood test. At the police station under the supervision of the arresting officer, a registered nurse withdrew blood from Miller. The results of the blood test showed 0.212 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. At Miller's driver's license revocation hearing, the arresting officer testified that he observed the registered nurse withdraw the blood from Miller, that the police department sent the sample to the lab, and that the results of the test indicated that Miller's blood alcohol level was 0.212.
The arresting officer's report was admitted into evidence. Among other items contained in that report was the laboratory report containing the results of the blood test signed by the nurse who withdrew the blood and the toxicologist who performed the test, plus a consent to the blood test signed by Miller.
In reversing the hearing officer's revocation of Miller's license, the trial court ruled that the hearing officer erred in admitting the arresting officer's report without requiring the Division to present testimony by either the nurse who drew the blood sample or witnesses who could testify as to compliance with the Colorado State Department of Health rules and regulations. Absent such testimony, the court held that there was insufficient foundation showing the accuracy of the test results. We conclude this ruling was in error.
Driver's license revocation is mandatory if a chemical test of the driver's blood yields results of 0.15 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. Section 42-2-122.1(1)(a)(I), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17). And, at a revocation hearing, the sole issue is whether a preponderance of the evidence shows that the operator drove a vehicle when his blood alcohol level exceeded that concentration. Section 42-2-122.1(8)(c), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17).
In a trial of a case involving alcohol-related traffic offenses, the court is required to take judicial notice of the methods and operation of devices for testing a person's blood to determine alcohol level. Section 42-4-1202(6), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17). The Colorado State Department of Health rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to § 42-4-1202, C.R.S., relating to blood alcohol testing govern the procedures for obtaining blood specimens, for conducting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div. v. Kirke
...provides a licensee the right to request that the hearing officer subpoena witnesses to attend the hearing. Miller v. Motor Vehicle Div., 706 P.2d 10, 12 (Colo.App.1985). This statutory right provided Kirke with the opportunity to confront and cross-examine any of the officers involved. Spe......
-
Hancock v. State, Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div.
...Hancock on September 20, 1984. He concedes that the foundation was sufficient under the standard articulated in Miller v. Motor Vehicle Division, 706 P.2d 10 (Colo.App.1985). He argues, however, that Miller should be reexamined because it conflicts with Aultman v. Motor Vehicle Division, 70......
-
Charnes v. Lobato
...se" statute which was effective at the time, we conclude that the hearing officer applied the appropriate test. See Miller v. Motor Vehicle Div., 706 P.2d 10 (Colo.App.1985) (at a revocation hearing "the sole issue is whether a preponderance of the evidence shows that the operator drove a v......
-
Rowland v. Dep't of Revenue
...Department of Public Health and Environment's rules and regulations are considered reliable. See Miller v. Motor Vehicle Div., Dep't of Revenue, 706 P.2d 10, 11–12 (Colo. App. 1985). The record evidence supports the hearing officer's findings that the procedures used to collect and analyze ......
-
ARTICLE 4 REGULATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC
...facie evidence that blood test was administered in compliance with rules and regulations. Miller v. Motor Vehicle Div., Dept. of Rev., 706 P.2d 10 (Colo. App. 1985). Preliminary breath test (PBT) results inadmissible in trial proceedings. The plain language of subsection (6)(i)(III) preclud......
-
ARTICLE 2 DRIVERS' LICENSES
...prejudiced by the error. Mitchek v. Dept. of Rev., 911 P.2d 715 (Colo. App. 1996). Applied in Miller v. Motor Vehicle Div., Dept. of Rev., 706 P.2d 10 (Colo. App. 1985); Kelln v. Colo. Dept. of Rev., 719 P.2d 358 (Colo. App. 1986); Franklin v. Dept. of Rev., 728 P.2d 391 (Colo. App. 1986); ......