Can administrative violations require suppression of DUI breath test evidence? State v. Garcia Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the consequences of regulatory violations in DUI breath testing procedures in State v. Garcia, examining when administrative code violations warrant suppression of evidence versus merely eliminating statutory presumptions.

Background and Facts

Garcia was cited for DUI after a breath alcohol test using an Intoxilyzer instrument. Highway Patrol Trooper Hathcock regularly conducted calibration tests using known reference samples to ensure instrument accuracy. However, instead of recording the actual numerical results to three decimal places as required by Utah Administrative Code Rule 714-500, Trooper Hathcock recorded the results simply as “OK,” indicating his opinion that results fell within acceptable margins. Garcia moved to suppress his breath test results, arguing this recording method violated administrative regulations.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary questions: First, whether Rule 714-500’s three-decimal-place recording requirement applied to reference sample tests used for instrument calibration. Second, if a violation occurred, whether the appropriate remedy was complete suppression of evidence under due process principles or merely elimination of the statutory presumption available under Utah Code § 41-6-44.3.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied correctness review to the statutory interpretation issue. Examining Rule 714-500’s structure, the court found that subsection 6D(6) requiring three-decimal-place recording for “all analytical results” applied to both arrestee test results and reference sample calibration tests. The rule’s organization—placing the recording requirement immediately after calibration testing provisions—indicated the requirement applied equally to both types of tests.

However, the court rejected Garcia’s argument for complete suppression. Under California v. Trombetta, due process violations require both apparent exculpatory value and unavailability of comparable evidence through other means. The “OK” notation actually allowed Garcia to argue the maximum allowable deviation, potentially more favorable than the actual numerical results. Additionally, Utah Code § 41-6-44.3 does not mandate exclusion for regulatory violations—it merely defines when statutory presumptions apply.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that administrative violations may eliminate statutory presumptions without requiring complete evidence suppression. Prosecutors must then establish instrument accuracy through traditional foundational testimony rather than documentary evidence. Defense attorneys should focus on whether regulatory violations prevent presumptions rather than seeking outright exclusion, while carefully examining calibration records for compliance with specific administrative requirements.