Utah Court of Appeals
Does Utah law require a mouth recheck after interrupted observation before breath testing? State v. Relyea Explained
Summary
Relyea was arrested for DUI and subjected to an Intoxilyzer test. The trial court suppressed the test results, finding the fifteen-minute observation period required by State v. Vialpando was not satisfied because the officer could not adequately observe Relyea during transport to the station.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Relyea, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a police officer must recheck a suspect’s mouth for foreign substances after an interruption in the fifteen-minute observation period required before administering an Intoxilyzer test under State v. Vialpando.
Background and Facts
Relyea was arrested for DUI after officers observed signs of impairment. The arresting officer performed a mouth check at 3:07 p.m., then transported Relyea to the police station, arriving at 3:12 p.m. During the five-minute transport, the officer admitted he could not adequately observe Relyea for burping or regurgitation. At the station, the officer continuously observed Relyea for sixteen minutes before administering the Intoxilyzer test at 3:28 p.m., but did not recheck his mouth upon arrival.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the Vialpando observation requirements were satisfied when continuous observation was interrupted during transport but resumed for sixteen minutes at the station without a subsequent mouth check. Relyea testified he suffered from GERD and regurgitated during transport but swallowed any residue.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied Vialpando’s three-prong test: (1) the suspect was in the officer’s presence, (2) the suspect had no opportunity to ingest or regurgitate anything, and (3) nothing impeded the officer’s powers of observation. The court found all requirements satisfied during the sixteen-minute station observation period. Crucially, the court held that a mouth recheck is not required after interrupted observation when the suspect had no opportunity to introduce foreign substances and the observation purposes are otherwise fulfilled.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that Utah courts focus on whether the functional purpose of the observation period is met rather than requiring rigid adherence to procedural formalities. Defense attorneys should concentrate on whether the three Vialpando prongs are actually satisfied, while prosecutors can rely on continuous observation periods that meet the test’s substantive requirements even when observation is briefly interrupted.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Relyea
Citation
2012 UT App 55
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100077-CA
Date Decided
February 24, 2012
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The State satisfied the fifteen-minute observation requirement under State v. Vialpando when the arresting officer continuously observed the defendant for sixteen minutes at the police station, even without a mouth recheck after the interrupted observation during transport.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for trial court’s determination of proper foundation for admission of evidence; correctness for trial court’s interpretation of binding case law
Practice Tip
When challenging breath test results, focus on whether the three Vialpando prongs are satisfied rather than insisting on rigid adherence to procedural formalities like mouth rechecks after brief observation interruptions.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.