Monday, April 25, 2016

Minneapolis DWI Attorney Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Kuehn v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided April 25, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that speculation as to the accuracy of blood test results is not sufficient to exclude the test results from evidence.

In Kuehn, the Petitioner was arrested for DWI by the Minnesota State Patrol on June 26, 2014. The Petitioner was taken to Lakeview Hospital in Washington County where he agreed to submit to a blood test.  The state trooper provided the medical technologist with a BCA approved DWI blood-draw kit and after a sample was obtained from the Petitioner, the trooper sealed the blood-test kit and subsequently delivered it to his district office.

The blood sample was received by the Minnesota BCA on July 1, 2014 and was analyzed by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension on July 8 and 9.  Until the BCA received the sample, it was not refrigerated, but the blood-test vial contained preservatives that prevent most degradation by heat.

The Petitioner had a blood-test expert testify at the license revocation hearing.  The expert claimed that many things could affect the accuracy of the testing, including the Petitioner's diabetes, exposure to heat, discrepancies in the amount of preservatives in the blood-test kit and contamination by the yeast Candida albicans.  The expert did not testify that any of these factors actually affected Kuehn's test result, but he speculated about the effect such factors could have on a blood sample.

The State's expert witness testified that she conducted the BCA analysis of Kuehn's blood sample.  She testified that the sample was refrigerated after it arrived a the BCA and that preservatives in the blood kit prevented fermentation of the sample from heat.  She testified that she observed no irregularities during the testing of the sample and that the sample was analyzed on two different days on two different gas chromatograph columns.

The state's expert also testified that tests are run on different columns because "[e]ach has its own chemistry which separates the volatiles differently. And it is done on two different columns to ensure identification of ethanol, as well as the reliability of the result." The results indicated that Kuehn had an alcohol concentration of 0.1551 or 0.1581.

The state's expert explained that the different peaks on the printed results indicated the presence of other compounds, including the presence of acetone, and that they were not unusual for someone with an underlying health problem like Kuehn, who is diabetic. But she also testified that the presence of these other compounds does not affect the ultimate ethyl-alcohol result. She affirmed that the computer software corrects for non-resolution, and does so by slightly lowering the ethyl-alcohol concentration. She stated that heat can degrade a blood sample, but there must also be some sort of bacteria or impurity, and the stabilizing agent slows any breakdown. The BCA is not concerned about possible Candida albicans contamination because it is relatively rare and the subject would most likely be hospitalized.

The District Court sustained the license revocation and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed, stating:

"The commissioner, as the proponent of a chemical test, has the burden to establish a prima facie case that the test was reliable and appropriate procedures were followed to ensure reliability. Genung v. Comm 'r of Pub. Safety, 589 N.W.2d 311,313 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied (Minn. May 18, 1999). The burden then shifts to the party opposing admission of chemical testing results to demonstrate why the test is not reliable or accurate. Id. The commissioner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion. But "arguing that something might have occurred is mere speculation and insufficient [to rebut chemical testing results] unless supported by additional evidence. [An appellate court] requires that the driver establish a relationship between the alleged error and the validity of the results."

In this case, the Petitioner's expert testified that various factors might have effected the blood test result.  But without any proof that any of these factors did, in fact, effect the test result, the revocation will be sustained.

Moral of The Story:  You can lead a court to water, but you can't make it drink.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.

No comments:

Post a Comment