ILNews

First impression case on mouthpieces as 'foreign substance'

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a matter of first impression, a portable breath test mouthpiece isn’t a foreign substance that will act to invalidate the results of a blood alcohol content Datamaster chemical breath test, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In State of Indiana v. James G. Lucas, No. 91A05-1003-CR-247, James Lucas argued his Datamaster results were invalid because he was given two portable breath tests within less than 20 minutes after being pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. He argued that the mouthpiece used to administer the portable breath test was a “foreign substance” for purposes of chemical breath test regulations. The trial court granted his motion to suppress.

The procedures for administering a breath test using a B.A.C. Datamaster say a person must not have had any foreign substance in his mouth or respiratory tract within 20 minutes before the time a breath sample is given.

The appellate judges rejected that argument and reversed the motion to suppress. They relied on neighboring provisions within the Datamaster regulations that state if the test displays certain errors after giving a breath sample, the test should be repeated once the green LED light on the instrument is glowing. The 20-minute delay isn’t required, and under these circumstances, the test subject would have had an initial mouthpiece placed in his mouth in less than 20 minutes. This doesn’t invalidate the final result, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

If the Datamaster mouthpiece isn’t considered a foreign substance, then the mouthpiece of the PBT shouldn’t be either.

“We acknowledge that PBTs and Datamasters are separate and distinct devices. Moreover, PBTs are less sophisticated than Datamasters and are not subject to certification by the State toxicology department. But PBTs are still recognized as standard breath testing instruments. The Indiana Code expressly sanctions their use by law enforcement and mandates their use in certain circumstances — even in tandem with chemical breath tests. Officer Stinson’s testimony further indicates that customary measures are observed to ensure that PBT mouthpieces are legitimate and uncontaminated,” she wrote.

The case was remanded for further proceedings.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT