ILNews

COA: Breathalyzer certificate is not testimonial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For the first time since the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2009 ruling that found a defendant had a Sixth Amendment right to confront the analysts who prepared lab certificates certifying the defendant had cocaine, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that a trial court did not violate the defendant’s right to confrontation by allowing the inspection certificate for a breathalyzer into evidence, even though the certifier of the equipment did not testify at trial.

In Francisco J. Ramirez v. State of Indiana, No. 65A01-0911-CR-543, finding the inspection certificate was not testimonial evidence within the purview of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), the Court of Appeals affirmed Francisco J. Ramirez’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

On Oct. 18, 2008, Ramirez was arrested for drunk driving and failed a field sobriety test after he was pulled over by a Mount Vernon Police Department officer. The officer had observed Ramirez was swerving and used his radar to find Ramirez was driving 8 mph over the posted speed limit.

After he was pulled over, Ramirez failed three field sobriety tests. He then agreed to a breath test on a BAC DataMaster, which printed a ticket that showed his blood alcohol content was .09.

At trial, the state introduced Ramirez’ breath test results and an official certificate of compliance that verified the officer’s DataMaster had been examined Aug. 12, 2008, and had been found to satisfy the requirements of Department of Toxicology Regulations. The director at the Department of Toxicology had signed the certificate.

Ramirez argued because the certificate showed the DataMaster’s results would be accurate, not being able to cross-examine the certifier disqualified the DataMaster printout as evidence.

Following Crawford, and prior to Melendez-Diaz, the Court of Appeals continued to find that certificates of compliance for breathalyzers were not testimonial, according to today’s opinion for Ramirez.

“We reasoned in part that (1) the certificates are not prepared at a judicial proceeding or during police interrogation, Rembusch, 836 N.E.2d at 982, (2) the certificates are not sworn affidavits and do not contain formalized testimonial materials, id., and (3) although inspection certificates are prepared for purposes of criminal litigation, ‘certification of breath-test machines is removed from the direct investigation or direct proof of whether any particular defendant has operated a vehicle while intoxicated; the certificates are not prepared in anticipation of litigation in any particular case or with respect to implicating any specific defendant.’ Jarrell, 852 N.E.2d at 1026 (citations omitted),” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote.

Following the decision of Melendez-Diaz, Judge Vaidik continued, the Court of Appeals still finds that the certificate for a breathalyzer is still not testimonial in nature. She cited the Supreme Court’s decision, which addressed certificates for lab equipment.

In her dissent, Senior Judge Betty Barteau agreed in result, but disagreed “with the majority’s conclusion that the State’s Certificate of Inspection and Compliance of Breath Test Instruments … is nontestimonial in nature. I therefore conclude that admission of that document violated Ramirez’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.”

Judge Barteau then compared the case to the 2009 Indiana Supreme Court decision Pendergrass v. State, 913 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. 2009), in which the Indiana Supreme Court determined a certificate of analysis from a DNA lab technician was testimonial in nature, citing Melendez-Diaz.

Judge Barteau also wrote in the Ramirez case the error was harmless because there was enough other evidence for a jury to convict Ramirez of operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner endangering a person, a Class A misdemeanor, based on the observations of the officer, who did testify at trial.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT