Are intoxilyzer calibration certificates testimonial hearsay under Crawford? Salt Lake City v. George Explained

In Salt Lake City v. George, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether intoxilyzer calibration certificates constitute testimonial hearsay under Crawford v. Washington, requiring live testimony from the technician who performed the calibration.

Background and Facts

George was arrested for DUI after officers observed him in a parked car with alcohol bottles present. He submitted to a breath test showing a .13 blood alcohol level. At trial, the City sought to admit two calibration certificates without testimony from Trooper Camacho, the technician who performed the calibration, as he was unavailable. George objected, arguing the certificates were testimonial evidence requiring confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the calibration certificates were testimonial in nature under Crawford, and (2) whether Utah Code section 41-6a-515, which permits admission of such certificates without live testimony, violates the Confrontation Clause.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the certificates were nontestimonial. The court distinguished these documents from the type of testimonial evidence targeted by Crawford, noting they were prepared as part of routine administrative testing required by Utah Administrative Code, not for prosecution of any specific defendant. The certificates contained only factual information about instrument functionality—serial numbers, dates, test results—generated by standardized procedures to ensure accuracy of breath testing instruments.

Critically, the court emphasized that the certificates were created to facilitate repair, removal, or decertification of instruments rather than to convict particular defendants. The technician filled out standardized forms without defendant-specific information, following routine calibration schedules mandated by regulation.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for both prosecutors and defense counsel in DUI cases. For prosecutors, it confirms that properly prepared calibration certificates under Utah Code section 41-6a-515 may be admitted without live testimony. For defense attorneys, the analysis suggests focusing challenges on whether certificates were prepared for routine administrative purposes versus prosecution-specific goals when arguing they are testimonial under Crawford.