State v. Kienast

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

State v. Kienast

357 N.W.2d 390, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3761

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 13, 1984

DocketNo. C8-83-1234

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 357 N.W.2d 390 (State v. Kienast) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Kienast, 357 N.W.2d 390, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3761 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

The State of Minnesota appeals from a pretrial order suppressing the results of a breath test, given after respondent’s arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.121 (1982 & Supp.1983). The trial court found the test results inadmissible on the ground that the Commissioner of Public Safety had failed to promulgate standards sufficient to establish and evaluate the training of persons who administer breath tests, as required by Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 3 (1982 & Supp.1983).

The issues raised in this appeal are the same as those decided in Quimby v. State, Department of Public Safety, 351 N.W.2d 629 (Minn.1984). Under the authority of Quimby we hold that (1) the Commissioner of Public Safety promulgated adequate standards to establish and evaluate the training of breathalyzer operators, see id. at 630-31; (2) the lack of explicit Commissioner approval of the training course does not render the test result inadmissible in a D.W.I. trial, see id. at 631; and (3) the Commissioner is not required to promulgate standards for deriving alcohol concentrations from breath samples because the breathalyzer machine does the interpretation itself, see id. at 632. As long as the test is accurately administered, this court recognizes the validity of the analysis performed by the breathalyzer. Id.

DECISION

The trial court’s order suppressing the results of a breath test given after respondent’s arrest for violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.121 is reversed.

Reversed.

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

OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

The State of Minnesota appeals from a pretrial order suppressing the results of a breath test, given after respondent’s arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.121 (1982 & Supp.1983). The trial court found the test results inadmissible on the ground that the Commissioner of Public Safety had failed to promulgate standards sufficient to establish and evaluate the training of persons who administer breath tests, as required by Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 3 (1982 & Supp.1983).

The issues raised in this appeal are the same as those decided in Quimby v. State, Department of Public Safety, 351 N.W.2d 629 (Minn.1984). Under the authority of Quimby we hold that (1) the Commissioner of Public Safety promulgated adequate standards to establish and evaluate the training of breathalyzer operators, see id. at 630-31; (2) the lack of explicit Commissioner approval of the training course does not render the test result inadmissible in a D.W.I. trial, see id. at 631; and (3) the Commissioner is not required to promulgate standards for deriving alcohol concentrations from breath samples because the breathalyzer machine does the interpretation itself, see id. at 632. As long as the test is accurately administered, this court recognizes the validity of the analysis performed by the breathalyzer. Id.

DECISION

The trial court’s order suppressing the results of a breath test given after respondent’s arrest for violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.121 is reversed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 N.W.2d 390, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kienast-minnctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack