State v. Tanksley, Jr., Minn.S.Ct., 2\8\2012. The state charged Mr. Tanksley with fourth degree driving while impaired, alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. The state based this charge on a first void urine test, the results of which satisfied the statutory requisite grams of alcohol per 67 milliliters of urine. Mr. Tanksley wanted a Frye-Mack hearing to resolve his claim that first void urine testing does not reliably correlate with a driver’s blood alcohol concentration.
The court of appeals had already answered this question –admitting the results of alcohol concentration determined by first void urine testing - in State v. Edstrom, 792 N.W.2d 105 (Minn.Ct.App. 2010). Justice Stras, however, goes completely around Edstrom by pointing out that the statute creates three methods for proving the requisite alcohol concentration:
“alcohol concentration” can be proven by the number of grams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood, in 210 liters of breath, or in 67 milliliters of urine. Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, subd. 2.
Even assuming that the correlation between determining alcohol concentration by first void urine testing and determining alcohol concentration by blood testing were weak, such evidence would have no effect on the determination whether the state proved that Mr. Tanksley’s urine alcohol concentration was at or above 0.08 grams per 67 milliliters of urine. In other words, the presence or absence of a correlation is irrelevant. Minn.R.Evid. 401.
Having resolved the case by resort to the rule of relevance, the court avoids deciding whether first void urine testing is a novel scientific technique.
No comments:
Post a Comment