From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Baker

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 23, 1978
247 S.E.2d 160 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)

Summary

In State v. Baker, 146 Ga. App. 608 (247 S.E.2d 160) (1978), we held that the state is required to produce either a properly authenticated record that the photo-electric intoximeter (or breath analyzer) was of a design specifically approved by the Director of the State Crime Laboratory or the testimony of the director himself to that effect.

Summary of this case from Smitherman v. State

Opinion

55665.

ARGUED APRIL 3, 1978.

DECIDED JUNE 23, 1978. REHEARING DENIED JULY 10, 1978.

D. U. I. Fulton State Court. Before Judge Lambros.

Hinson McAuliffe, Solicitor, Frank A. Bowers, R. L. O'Brien, Jr., Assistant Solicitors, for appellant.

James B. Pilcher, for appellee.


The defendant is accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. The state appeals the grant of her motion to suppress evidence of a breath test which had been administered to her to determine her blood-alcohol content. The trial court granted the motion because the state could not produce admissible evidence that the testing device used, a photo-electric intoximeter, had been approved by the state crime laboratory.

We affirm. Although Code § 68A-902.1, which governs the administration of blood-alcohol tests, does not contain any requirement that breath analysis equipment be approved by the state crime laboratory, such a requirement is created by Rule 570-9-.06 (6) of the Rules of the Department of Public Safety, as reported in the Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Vol. VI. That regulation provides in pertinent part, as follows: "All breath tests other than the original screening test will be conducted on a photo-electric intoximeter or breath analyzer of a design specifically approved by the Director, State Crime Laboratory."

The police officer who testified for the state regarding the administration of the test was not competent to state whether the director of the state crime laboratory had approved the design of the machine in question. Proof of that fact would require either a properly authenticated record to that effect or the testimony of the director himself. Since no such evidence was available, the trial court was correct in suppressing the test results.

Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

ARGUED APRIL 3, 1978 — DECIDED JUNE 23, 1978 — REHEARING DENIED JULY 10, 1978 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.


Summaries of

State v. Baker

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 23, 1978
247 S.E.2d 160 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)

In State v. Baker, 146 Ga. App. 608 (247 S.E.2d 160) (1978), we held that the state is required to produce either a properly authenticated record that the photo-electric intoximeter (or breath analyzer) was of a design specifically approved by the Director of the State Crime Laboratory or the testimony of the director himself to that effect.

Summary of this case from Smitherman v. State

In Baker, supra, we held that "Proof of that fact would require either a properly authenticated record to that effect or the testimony of the director himself."

Summary of this case from Brady v. State
Case details for

State v. Baker

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE v. BAKER

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jun 23, 1978

Citations

247 S.E.2d 160 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
247 S.E.2d 160

Citing Cases

State v. Johnston

In absence of the advice, the intoximeter results are inadmissible. Nelson v. State, 135 Ga. App. 212, 214 (…

Willoughby v. State

1. In State v. Baker, 146 Ga. App. 608 ( 247 S.E.2d 160) this court held "Although Code § 68A-902.1, which…