tcdla - Voice For The Defense Online

in a particular case satisfies the statutmy reqnirments, i.e., the tl~dprong of (~~cliability in) XilrJ~whether the technique was p operlyapplied on the occasion in question. Hflrtttm, 946 S.W.2d at 64(KeUer, J., conc~uth19) I tote and empl~mes omitletl)lThe basis of the defense's claim is not that the intodyer, it? tho-IJI, is iuvalld or umeliable. Both tl~eLegislature and the conas nppmrto be in agreement tl~at, ~~l~atevcr challe~~ges may be ntonnted in theoryto the maclhe's basis for opeittion, the law of Texas \dl renlamdeaf to tltose con~plaints wlllicl~ challenge the underl$og tl~eory ofoperation of the 111toXii)zer 5000. Nevertl~dcss, that theory or thosetl~eories un~lerlying the openfio~~ of the ~nachine musl he correctlyappLidon the occasion of tlte testing of the defendmt in aDWI me.THE SEATE OP TEXASVS.MOTION TO SWPRESS BWATH 'I'FSl' RESULTSDefendant Eles &is Motion to Snppre-ess put'sunnt Rules 102,403, 702,705, Rules of ~vidcnce andillata u. Sf&, 46 SX3d 902 (Tex.Crr\pp.2001) as follnws:IRETROGRADE EXTRAPO~ION OF BWH TEX NOT mmmSection 49.01, et seq, Tax. Pen. Code wlllich defines the offelm of drivingwl~lle intoxicated reqnires Ule sfate to prom the defcndm~t'spIt~~iologcdcondition wl~ile he \vm UI achd physical control of a motor vehicle.Under Rule 702, of the Rules of Evidence any expert opinion concerning the results of the tests xttempting to relate those resnlts to Mr.Defendant's pl~jsiological condition at some time prior constiti~tes NI tnreliable scientific techniqr~c under the facts of tlus case because the expe11wimess in Ibis case has no underlying data II~OII wlich to base an opioion concerning retrogntle e~trapnlaLion. Consequently, "ret-etrograde e\lrapolalion"of the ~esults of tile btmth tcst is not admissible, and it is a proper subject in a prrett.ial motion to suppress.U.WITHOUT RETROGRADE lXl%WOI.ATION TESTRESUETS ARE IRRELEVANT,fill DEPECTIW PROCEDURES OF TEST REDUCE PROBITY OF RESmThe sate must show: (1) tlv nlacl~ine functi~ned properly an tlte day of the test as mdenced by tlte rumd~lg of a reference sample through them&~e, (2) the existence of periodic supewision ova the or,~cbine and opemtion by one \\,IIO itndersh.nds tl~e sretenbtlt theory of the machine;and (3) proof of tl~e results of tlte tcst by a witness or witnesses qu&ed to tm~~late and intc~prd the resdts so as to eliminate hmmayIn this case, tltcrc \vas a problem with tlm ~nzuter ~II %hicll the test nras pa$ormformcd. A test whidt is in\& for any nyvamu is not admissible.The basis of i\fr Defendant's chim is not tl~athe into3)ze1', in t6eot:jl: fs indid or uoreliable. Tlu: clain~ is tlmt thefl~leory or those thcoriesundcrl#ng tlte operation of the n~achine were not cortwctp nppliliodon tl~e occasion of the testing of the defendant in a DWI case.ne into.dy~ is designed to measure the weight of dcohol ncco13tely in air only at 34 degrees.1. The intouil)t+er is designed to measure the ncigl~t of dcoltol accurately it air only at 34 degrees2. It is not clesigned to measure fie weigl~t of dcol~ol in air of an unknown ternpcralnre, and weight ofdc.~ltol measurenwutsmade by tl~eintodyzer 5000 of nir of an ~mknciwn tenlperahirc 01' of a teiIlpClYIhnt bigher Ihan 34 degrees centigtilde isunxelbable by clear nnd convinci~tg nidence 'OClOBER 2001 WWW.TCOL&COM VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE 17