Can portable breath test results be used in municipal employment termination proceedings? Becker v. Sunset City Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of portable breath test (PBT) results in municipal employment termination proceedings in Becker v. Sunset City. This case provides important guidance on evidentiary standards in administrative hearings and the reliability requirements for breath testing devices.

Background and Facts

Stewart Becker, a Sunset City police officer, was terminated after reporting to work with a blood alcohol content of 0.045. Becker had consumed alcohol before sleeping during an eight-hour break between shifts. When his supervisor detected alcohol odor, Becker consented to a portable breath test using his own department-issued device, which registered 0.045. Utah Highway Patrol troopers independently observed alcohol odor and behaviors consistent with intoxication. City policy deemed employees with a BAC of 0.04 or greater to be under the influence.

Key Legal Issues

Becker challenged his termination on multiple grounds: (1) the PBT results were inadmissible due to lack of certification and insufficient foundation regarding reliability; (2) without the PBT evidence, insufficient evidence supported the termination; and (3) the city violated its own policy by not conducting a urinalysis. The central issue was whether PBT results could provide substantial evidence in municipal administrative proceedings despite their inadmissibility in criminal cases.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied an abuse of discretion standard for the board’s termination decision and correctness for legal relevance determinations. Municipal tribunals must admit evidence that is “legally relevant,” meaning it has “some probative weight and reliability.” The court found adequate foundation for the PBT results through: (1) expert testimony from a Utah Highway Patrol trooper trained in breath testing devices; (2) Becker’s own statements about his device’s accuracy; (3) subsequent testing confirming the device’s reliability; and (4) the trooper’s testimony that PBTs produce readings within thousandths of certified intoxilyzer results. The court also found the city’s departure from urinalysis requirements was justified by operational necessity.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that PBT results can be admissible in municipal administrative proceedings with proper foundation, even though they are excluded from criminal trials. The court emphasized this ruling was fact-specific and did not establish universal admissibility. Practitioners should establish reliability through expert testimony, device maintenance records, and specific evidence about the particular instrument used. The decision also confirms that municipal policies allowing deviation from standard procedures in appropriate circumstances will be upheld when supported by substantial evidence.