Opinion
No. C4-03-182.
Filed October 14, 2003.
Appeal from the District Court, Cass County, File No. C9011441.
Rich Kenly, (for appellant)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Joel A. Watne, Assistant Attorney General, (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appealing from the denial of his petition for rescission of the revocation of his driver's license, Anthony Carl Ramirez argues that the district court erred by concluding that he failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his Intoxilyzer test results were unreliable. Because the commissioner established a prima facie case of the test's reliability and because Ramirez failed to rebut the commissioner's showing of reliability, we affirm.
FACTS
On December 2, 2001, Minnesota State Trooper Dion Pederson stopped appellant Anthony Carl Ramirez for speeding. Trooper Pederson noticed an odor of alcohol emanating from Ramirez's car and that Ramirez had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. The trooper also noticed that Ramirez's balance was impaired and that he had difficulty getting his driver's license out of his wallet. Ramirez admitted to having consumed alcoholic beverages earlier in the day. A horizontal-gaze nystagmus test indicated that Ramirez was intoxicated, and a portable breath test showed Ramirez's alcohol concentration to be 0.119. Trooper Pederson arrested Ramirez for driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Trooper Pederson transported Ramirez to the Cass County Law Enforcement Center, where he gave Ramirez the implied-consent advisory. Ramirez agreed to take a breath test, which showed that he had an alcohol concentration of 0.11. The Commissioner of Public Safety subsequently revoked Ramirez's driver's license.
Ramirez petitioned for rescission of the revocation of his driver's license on the ground that the breath-test results were unreliable. The district court denied Ramirez's petition, and this appeal follows.
DECISION
Ramirez argues that the district court erred by concluding that the breath test administered to him was reliable. He claims that he rebutted the commissioner's prima facie case of the test's reliability by producing evidence that the Intoxilyzer 5000 unit used in his test had recorded calibration tests outside of acceptable limits on seven occasions before his test and again the day after his test, that generally accepted scientific standards require that under these circumstances a unit be removed from service, and that a test using such an unreliable unit should not be used as a basis for revoking his driver's license.
The party offering the results of an Intoxilyzer test into evidence has the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the test is reliable by showing that the administration of the test conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability. State v. Dille, 258 N.W.2d 565, 567 (Minn. 1977). When a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to a party challenging the test to demonstrate why the test is unreliable. Id. at 568. The party challenging the reliability of a test must provide more than speculation to demonstrate unreliability. Roettger v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 633 N.W.2d 70, 74 (Minn.App. 2001). We will defer to the district court's assessment of the weight and credibility of expert testimony. Minn.R.Civ.P. 52.01; Frost v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 348 N.W.2d 803, 804 (Minn.App. 1984). But we review de novo a district court's burden-of-proof determinations. Genung v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 589 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Minn.App. 1999), review denied (Minn. May 18, 1999).
Ramirez's expert, Thomas Burr, testified that the Intoxilyzer used in Ramirez's test was unreliable because of the number of times it failed to calibrate within an acceptable range and that generally accepted scientific standards require that such a unit be removed from service as unreliable. But Burr found nothing to indicate that the Intoxilyzer was not operating correctly when the breath test was administered to Ramirez. The commissioner's expert testified that Ramirez's test record showed nothing that would suggest that his test was unreliable. She also testified that on each occasion that the unit produced a calibration result that was out of range, the unit reacted as it should by shutting down. It is uncontested that when Ramirez took the breath test the unit produced the expected calibration result and did not shut down.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that where, as here, a breath-test unit's room-air test and simulator-solution test, which are procedures to ensure reliability, give the expected results, the commissioner's evidence constitutes "almost incontrovertible proof" that "the instrument [was] in working order." Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Habisch, 313 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn. 1981) (quotation omitted) (analyzing reliability of a Breathalyzer unit); see also Schultz v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 393 N.W.2d 373, 375 (Minn.App. 1986) (applying similar analysis for reliability of an Intoxilyzer unit). The district court found that appropriate procedures were followed in administering Ramirez's test, that all indicia of reliability of the Intoxilyzer were present, and, therefore, that the Intoxilyzer test administered to Ramirez was reliable. Because the district court's determination that the test was reliable is supported by the record, and because Ramirez's evidence challenging the test results is merely speculative, the district court did not err by concluding that Ramirez failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the Intoxilyzer test results were unreliable.