LYNNWOOD — A Snohomish County District Court judge ruled Wednesday that he won’t throw out breath alcohol tests in dozens of drunken-driving cases.
Defense attorneys last month asked Judge Jeffrey Goodwin to suppress tests in scores of cases because the results didn’t include the margin of error in measuring the results. They argued that unless the range was calculated and reported, a jury wouldn’t get an accurate picture of the results.
If Goodwin had found in favor of the defense, the decision eventually could have gutted thousands of cases.
Prosecutors argued that jurors should continue to learn the results of the tests.
The defense can challenge the results during trial and ask jurors to consider the margin of error when they decide how much weight to place on the breath and blood alcohol test results, they argued.
The breath and blood tests are not perfect but they are accurate and reliable, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Roe said Wednesday.
The tests are a valuable tool to keep drunken drivers off the streets, and they can be particularly useful with drivers who may not show outward signs of intoxication or who refuse field sobriety tests.
“This motion was never about what evidence jurors should hear. It was about what evidence jurors shouldn’t hear,” Roe said.
Defense attorneys have been challenging the tests for decades making different arguments. In response to repeated challenges, state lawmakers in 2004 established criteria that the test results must meet to be admitted as evidence in trials.
Prosecutors argued that if they meet those hurdles, jurors can hear the results of the tests.
Goodwin agreed, saying that the law requires prosecutors to establish that the scientific evidence they want to admit will assist jurors in determining a fact. The methods the state toxicology lab uses to report breath and blood alcohol levels have met this threshold, Goodwin ruled.
Defense attorneys argued the test results should be presented within a range of probability, rather than a single number. Goodwin was not persuaded. Not showing the margin of error does not render evidence so “unreliable that it does not assist the fact-finder,” Goodwin wrote.
The state’s toxicology lab does provide the margin of error for test results that are close to .08, the legal limit. They do the same for tests with results of .15 or above, which can lead to harsher penalties, Washington State Patrol spokesman Bob Calkins said.
Defense attorneys wanted the lab to calculate the level of uncertainty for each of the 40,000 cases the lab analyzes each year. That was a “transparent attempt to clog up the system,” Calkins said.
Similar motions are pending around the courts in Western Washington, Calkins said.
Roe said he doesn’t begrudge the defense attorneys for making their argument. They have a right and duty to challenge evidence and defend their clients. He expects they will continue to challenge the tests.
“We’re heaving a sigh of relief at the judge’s decision,” Roe said.
Diana Hefley: 425-339-3463; hefley@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
