Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/State v. Baker

State v. Baker

247 S.E.2d 160, 146 Ga. App. 608, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2475
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 23, 1978
Docket55665
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 247 S.E.2d 160 (State v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Baker, 247 S.E.2d 160, 146 Ga. App. 608, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2475 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

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 *609 Laboratory.”

Argued April 3, 1978 Decided June 23, 1978 Rehearing denied July 10, 1978 Hinson MeAuliffe, Solicitor, Frank A. Bowers, R. L. O’Brien, Jr., Assistant Solicitors, for appellant. James B. Pilcher, for appellee.

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.

Been, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

\

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bailey v. State
494 S.E.2d 672 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Corner v. State
477 S.E.2d 593 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Rielli v. State
330 S.E.2d 104 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Stewart v. State
299 S.E.2d 134 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Strickland v. State
297 S.E.2d 491 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
State v. Johnston
291 S.E.2d 543 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1982)
State v. Johnston
286 S.E.2d 47 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
McCann v. State
279 S.E.2d 499 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Willoughby v. State
265 S.E.2d 352 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Smitherman v. State
265 S.E.2d 119 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Brady v. State
258 S.E.2d 914 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 S.E.2d 160, 146 Ga. App. 608, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-baker-gactapp-1978.