Noren v. Commissioner of Public Safety
| Decision Date | 26 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CX-84-1424,CX-84-1424 |
| Citation | 363 N.W.2d 315 |
| Parties | Scott Jeffery NOREN, Petitioner, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Appellant's evidence showing a low simulator solution test reading was insufficient to rebut the State's prima facie showing that a breathalyzer test was reliable, without some indication that the low reading unduly exaggerated his test result.
2. Where there was evidence rebutting the State's prima facie showing that a breathalyzer test was reliable, a satisfactory explanation of the rebuttal evidence preserved the credibility of the test result.
David J. Gherity, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Joel A. Watne, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard, considered and decided by WOZNIAK, P.J., and PARKER and HUSPENI, JJ.
Appellant's driver's license was revoked after he failed a breathalyzer test given by a St. Louis Park police officer. He presented evidence that the "simulator solution test," used to verify the breathalyzer machine's reliability, gave a low reading, contending that this renders the test invalid and unreliable. The trial court found the breathalyzer test adequate to sustain revocation of appellant's driver's license pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123 (1982 & Supp.1983). We affirm.
In April 1984 Sergeant James Welna, a St. Louis Park police officer and certified breathalyzer operator, administered a breathalyzer test to appellant Scott Noren. Welna followed the steps set out in the breathalyzer operational checklist as he prepared the machine and gave the test. One step was a "simulator solution test," performed to determine whether the machine is operating properly. In the test, a solution certified by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) to have an alcohol concentration of .11 is blown through the breathalyzer. If the simulator solution test gives a reading of .100 to .120, it is highly probable the machine is operating correctly. A reading outside those parameters alerts the officer that "something is amiss". A low reading may indicate that the simulator solution is becoming weak or that the machine is not operating properly.
Welna obtained a reading of .098 on the simulator solution test. This reading did not concern him because he usually obtained readings below .11 on such tests. In addition, many tests had been taken that month, and the readings were dropping. The simulator solution weakens with usage and is replaced in St. Louis Park approximately once a month. Welna had used the breathalyzer unit before and noted nothing that caused him to believe the machine was functioning improperly or inconsistently when he gave the test to Noren. Furthermore, Welna understood that a low reading would operate in favor of the subject.
Welna administered the breathalyzer test to Noren and obtained a reading of .18 alcohol concentration. Noren's driver's license was revoked pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123 (1982 & Supp.1983). Noren petitioned for judicial review, and the trial court sustained the revocation.
Did the trial court err in finding the breathalyzer test adequate to sustain revocation of appellant's driver's license pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123?
Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123, subd. 2 (Supp.1983), provides that any person who drives a motor vehicle in Minnesota consents to a chemical blood, breath or urine test for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol. Noren challenges the results of his breath test under Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123, subd. 6, alleging that the testing method was invalid and unreliable and therefore inadequate to sustain the revocation of his driver's license.
On review, this court should uphold a finding of the trial court "unless clearly erroneous, either upon a clear demonstration that it is without substantial evidentiary support or that it was induced by an erroneous view of the law." Ortendahl v. Bergmann, 343 N.W.2d 309, 311 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); see also Estate of Serbus v. Serbus, 324 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn.1982). In addition, it is well settled that laws relating to revocation of driving privileges are remedial statutes for the protection of the public and are to be liberally construed to that end. See, e.g., Heddan v. Dirkswager, 336 N.W.2d 54, 62-63 (Minn.1983); State Department of Highways v. Normandin, 284 Minn. 24, 26, 169 N.W.2d 222, 224 (1969).
The proponent of a chemical test must establish that the test is reliable and "that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability." State v. Dille, 258 N.W.2d 565, 567 (Minn.1977). After a prima facie showing of trustworthy administration has occurred, "it is 'incumbent upon defendant to suggest a reason why the * * * test was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Source Code Evidentiary Hearings in Implied Consent Matters, A11–0560.
...the test result, the government must demonstrate that the defect did not affect the reliability of the test. Noren v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 363 N.W.2d 315, 318 (Minn.App.1985). Assuming without deciding that the parties' contentions are correct, we are faced with the issue of what standard......
-
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety
...test was trustworthy was established by the Commissioner. State v. Dille, 258 N.W.2d 565, 568 (Minn.1977); Noren v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 363 N.W.2d 315 (Minn.Ct.App.1985); Kooi v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 363 N.W.2d 487 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). Respondent did not challenge the va......
-
State v. Stiernagle, No. A03-1422 (MN 7/6/2004), No. A03-1422.
...the reliability of the test, the driver must produce evidence suggesting why the test was untrustworthy. Noren v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 363 N.W.2d 315, 317 (Minn. App. 1985). The duty to produce the evidence of contamination through burping or belching, which are often concealed and diffic......
-
McIntyre v. Comm'r Safety
...664, 666 (Minn. App. 1984), but must establish that the alleged defect actually affected the test results. Noren v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 363 N.W.2d 315, 318 (Minn. App. 1985). Whether the presumption of validity has been rebutted is generally a question of fact. See Fritzke v. Comm'r of P......