Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellate court reviewed the case involving the revocation of a driver's license under C.R.S. 42-2-122, following an appeal by the licensee who challenged the trial court’s decision affirming the Motor Vehicle Division’s action. The primary legal issue centered on the admissibility of breath test results obtained without a Department of Health operational checklist. The appellant contended that this absence undermined the test's accuracy and violated due process rights. However, the court found that the breath test's reliability was sufficiently established through testimony from the arresting officer, who confirmed his certification and compliance with operational protocols. The court referenced Aultman v. Motor Vehicle Division, affirming that adherence to health regulations by a certified operator constitutes a prima facie case for admitting breath test results. The appellate court found no merit in the appellant's additional arguments and upheld the trial court's decision, affirming the revocation of the driver's license. Judges Kelly and Sternberg concurred in the judgment.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admissibility of Breath Test Resultssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that a prima facie case for admitting breath test results is established when a certified individual operates the device in compliance with health regulations, notwithstanding the absence of a Department of Health operational checklist.
Reasoning: The court states that if there is evidence that a breath testing device is operated by a certified individual and administered according to health regulations, a prima facie case for admitting breath test results is established, citing Aultman v. Motor Vehicle Division.
Due Process in Breath Test Administrationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court rejected the argument that the absence of an operational checklist violated due process, as sufficient testimony confirmed the proper functioning and administration of the breath test.
Reasoning: The court affirms the judgment, rejecting Malone's argument that the absence of a Department of Health operational checklist undermined the accuracy of the breath testing device and violated his due process rights.
Revocation of Driver’s License under C.R.S. 42-2-122subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the revocation of the appellant's driver’s license, reinforcing the authority of the Motor Vehicle Division under C.R.S. 42-2-122.
Reasoning: Thomas H. Malone appeals the trial court's judgment affirming the Motor Vehicle Division’s revocation of his driver’s license under C.R.S. 42-2-122.