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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT