ÿWPCø  »û”A-HuÈzIiD0¿Ž7ÆÐrû¨°3©³¬kÐB&uÃÿŒIõ–z©Šú ®«ud$ð25§™& ¶zÙÇÙÓ€±óÅ6N6#lÀ´|l¡»ÂNj ˜ŠžÒR·ÔÖœæô¾ŠwJjÒïîÂwBªÊ¦OWw.~¿%Þ¿N\²šGQ6tÖèòAüµá „'sJR[a¡s×–j ^> ˜‹2¹~f úp´í>ƒ¹ù/4rZsK¼/hª÷ïàéZ¡"ûÀ‹CayÔf,ªmr£N ¦îë)¥4 »PYF£¬% +#ɽٽzZ¨² δ °h:M÷† ´µd‡Ú¸»‘Ä'ù5Qý¯¥ÖËNöqx)³føâU¦ZÂŽRÒ][¾·Ž›Éœæ>D°FÙ놞a/.¢2žÅFu?6ܶ§f?ÈÜU_?5ŠkȬ>A±KiÏ ¹ËUŒÈŒ{3© 5J¢N‹÷;7Câ[î]»{Pþ «šÚ›2÷ø=x”ý+&ºÉ)¶8·DI3û%w¬cÅs®ÿ]“ÔnÄIwe ÀtrÇ:òµG…¦Aß¶°hA€õr/ô|ç÷š²|9éÏÏÍPöyòÝAW#ÁÂU Nƒ %Ñ 0:×UN ^ _ wk 4o ƒ ’ m” « Á N× × × × × × × × EÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù BÛ ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular;­œ) ÖJ~'OPINIONSH„¥3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ñ e Ñ Ñ ° Ñ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑe°ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ‡¼´»XXÔÑ8€ÕXXdædÈ8ÑÑ€ OYÑÑ€ ïWÑà@ttìàÔ#†XÕX»¼´c#ÔÔ‡î‚îXXÕÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†XÕXîî‚#ÔÔ‡¼´»XXÕԈРР ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€à @ àà @` àJuly€19,€2000Ð ð@ ÐÔ#†XÕX»¼´´#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼´»XXÕÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€ZANE€ALLEN€DAVIS,€JR.ó óÔ#†XÕX»¼´i#ÔÔ‡¼´»XXÕÔÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ  P Ðà@@øøìàNo.€11„108„598€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeÐ  ^ ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<7` AßÐ 8ˆ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00737„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€Ô_ÔDecemberÔ_Ô€28,€2000Ð U¥  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<p` AßÐ qÁ  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†XÕX»¼´Ù#ÔDefendant€Zane€Allen€Davis€was€found€guilty€by€a€Williamson€County€jury€of€violating€Tenn.€CodeÐ ŽÞ ÐAnn.€ðð55„10„401(a)(2),€driving€a€vehicle€while€the€alcohol€concentration€in€the€driverððs€blood€orÐ tÄ Ðbreath€was€ten„hundredths€of€one€percent€(0.10%)€or€more,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€The€trial€courtÐ Zª Ðsentenced€Defendant€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days,€with€the€sentence€suspended€afterÐ @ ÐDefendant€served€thirty€days€in€the€County€Jail,€and€a€$1250€fine.€€Defendant€raises€the€followingÐ &v Ðissues€in€his€appeal:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ruled€that€the€State€was€not€requiredÐ  \ Ðunder€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€16€to€provide€Defendant€with€documentation€pertaining€to€the€reliability€ofÐ òB Ðhis€blood€alcohol€test€results;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€quashed€Defendantððs€subpoenaÐ Ø( Ðduces€tecum€requesting€the€Stateððs€expert€to€bring€documentation,€previously€ruled€undiscoverableÐ ¾ Ðunder€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€16,€to€trial;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€Stateððs€expertÐ ¤ô Ðwitness€to€testify€without€first€laying€the€proper€foundation;€and€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erredÐ ŠÚ Ðwhen€it€limited€Defendantððs€proof€at€trial€regarding€the€arresting€officerððs€motive.€€After€a€reviewÐ pÀ Ðof€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð V¦ ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ " r ÐÌòòÓ  ÓThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.,óó€andÐ î!>  ÐòòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ô"$! ÐÌLee€Ô_ÔOfmanÔ_Ô,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Zane€Allen€Davis,€Jr.Ð  $ð# ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Marvin€S.€Blair,€Jr.,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð l&¼!% ÐRonald€L.€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€Lee€E.€Dryer,€Assistant€District€Attorney.Ð R'¢"& ÐÌÌÌÌÓí Óò òOPINIONó óÐ Ð+ '+ ÐÔ_Ô‡òòóóÓ  Óà  àOn€May€11,€1998,€the€Williamson€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€Defendant€Zane€Allen€DavisÐ ° Ðfor€driving€under€the€influence€(ð ðDUIðð)€of€an€intoxicant,€driving€while€the€alcohol€concentration€inÐ –æ ÐDefendantððs€blood€or€breath€was€ten„hundredths€of€one€percent€(0.10%)€or€more,€driving€on€aÐ |Ì Ðrevoked€license,€second„offense€DUI,€and€second„offense€unlawfully€driving€on€a€revoked€licenseÐ b² Ðas€a€result€of€prior€offense.€€On€November€18,€1999,€a€Williamson€County€jury€found€DefendantÐ H˜ Ðguilty€of€driving€with€blood€alcohol€of€ten„hundredths€of€one€percent€or€more,€a€Class€AÐ . ~ Ðmisdemeanor,€and€not€guilty€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license;€the€remaining€charges€were€dismissed.Ð  d ÐÌà  àIn€his€motion€for€a€new€trial,€Defendant€claimed€that€the€State€suppressed€evidence€materialÐ à 0 Ðto€the€preparation€of€his€defense.€€Specifically,€this€evidence€consisted€of€data€concerning€theÐ Æ   Ðreliability€of€the€instrument€used€to€acquire€the€blood€alcohol€test€results€used€in€evidence€againstÐ ¬ ü  ÐDefendant€at€trial.€€This€information€was€requested€in€a€discovery€motion€and€through€subpoenaÐ ’â  Ðduces€tecum€which€were€denied€and€quashed,€respectively.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ xÈ  Ðsentenced€Defendant€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days,€with€the€sentence€to€be€suspended€afterÐ ^®  ÐDefendant€serves€thirty€days€in€the€County€Jail.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€revoked€DefendantððsÐ D”  Ðlicense€for€a€period€of€one€year€(with€application€for€restricted€license€available)€and€required€thatÐ *z  ÐDefendant€attend€Alcohol€Safety€School.€€Defendant€raises€the€following€issues€in€his€appeal:€(1)Ð ` Ðwhether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ruled€that€the€State€was€not€required€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ð öF Ð16€to€provide€Defendant€with€documentation€pertaining€to€the€reliability€of€his€blood€alcohol€test;Ð Ü, Ð(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€quashed€Defendantððs€subpoena€duces€tecum€requesting€theÐ Â ÐStateððs€expert€to€bring€documentation€previously€ruled€undiscoverable€under€Rule€16€to€trial;€(3)Ð ¨ø Ðwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€Stateððs€expert€witness€to€testify€without€first€laying€theÐ ŽÞ Ðproper€foundation;€and€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€limited€Defendantððs€proof€regardingÐ tÄ Ðthe€arresting€officerððs€motive.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð Zª ÐÌà@22&ìàò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ &v ÐÌà  àAdrian€Breedlove,€an€officer€with€the€Brentwood€Police€Department,€testified€at€trial€that€heÐ òB Ðwas€on€duty€the€evening€of€February€17,€1998,€when€he€observed€two€trucks€traveling€in€excess€ofÐ Ø( Ðthe€posted€speed€limit.€€Using€radar,€Breedlove€clocked€the€speed€of€the€vehicles€at€fifty„two€milesÐ ¾ Ðper€hour,€twenty„two€miles€per€hour€over€the€posted€maximum€speed.€€Breedlove€testified€that€heÐ ¤ô Ðpursued€the€vehicles,€using€his€lights€and€siren,€but€the€drivers€of€both€trucks€ignored€him.€Ð Š Ú ÐUltimately,€Breedlove€caught€up€with€them€when€they€stopped€in€the€parking€lot€of€OððCharleyððsÐ p!À  Ðrestaurant.Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àOfficer€Breedlove€testified€that€the€drivers€of€the€trucks€were€identified€as€Zane€Allen€Davis,Ð "$r# Ðthe€Defendant,€and€a€friend€of€Defendantððs€named€Thorpe€Weber.€€When€Breedlove€first€confrontedÐ %X $ Ðthe€two€men,€both€drivers€ð ðsmelled€like€alcohol.ðð€€Consequently,€Breedlove€questioned€them€bothÐ î%>!% Ðand€administered€standard€field€sobriety€tests€(ð ðFSTðð)€to€determine€whether€they€were€fit€to€drive.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐWeber€passed€the€sobriety€tests€and€was€released€with€a€citation€for€speeding.€€Defendant,€on€theÐ º' #' Ðother€hand,€failed€both€tests€given€him:€the€one„leg„stand€and€the€walk„and„turn€test.€€BreedloveÐ  (ð#( Ðfurther€testified€that€Defendant€also€had€bloodshot,€watery€eyes€and€that€his€speech€was€slurred.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐMoreover,€Defendant€was€unsteady€on€his€feet€and€admitted€that€he€had€been€drinking€earlier.€€ForÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€foregoing€reasons,€Breedlove€arrested€Defendant€and€explained€the€Implied€Consent€Law€to€him.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐWhen€Defendant€agreed€to€submit€to€a€blood€alcohol€test,€Breedlove€accompanied€him€to€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÑ OYÑâ  âѰ°Ñâ  âÑ  ÑWilliamson€Medical€Center€for€testing.€€Breedlove€received€the€blood€sample€from€the€hospitalÐ ° Ðtechnician,€sealed€and€initialed€the€tube,€then€placed€it€into€a€tamper„proof€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÐ –æ ÐInvestigation€evidence€box€for€storage€at€the€police€department€until€it€could€be€taken€to€the€crimeÐ |Ì Ðlaboratory€for€analysis.€€Ð b² ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€his€duties€as€a€police€officer,€Officer€Breedlove€testified€that€he€is€a€certifiedÐ . ~ ÐDUI€Instructor.€€As€such,€Breedlove€is€qualified€to€train€other€officers€in€methods€of€detecting€andÐ  d Ðapprehending€intoxicated€drivers.€€Breedlove€explained€that€the€standardized€FSTs€given€TennesseeÐ ú J Ðdrivers€are€recognized€and€administered€nationally.€€To€fail€a€test,€the€driver€must€exhibit€two€orÐ à 0 Ðmore€ð ðcluesðð€indicating€intoxication€while€he€being€tested.€€For€instance,€eight€ð ðcluesðð€exist€for€theÐ Æ   Ðwalk„and„turn€test.€€These€include€losing€oneððs€balance,€starting€too€early,€raising€oneððs€arms,Ð ¬ ü  Ðstopping€without€reason,€and€not€following€the€officerððs€directions.€The€National€HighwayÐ ’â  ÐTransportation€&€Safety€Administration€has€determined€that€a€suspect€who€evinces€two€or€moreÐ xÈ  Ðclues€for€either€FST€can€be€considered€too€intoxicated€to€lawfully€drive.€€Breedlove€testified€thatÐ ^®  ÐDefendant€exhibited€more€than€two€ð ðcluesðð€for€both€tests:€during€the€one„leg€stand€test€DefendantÐ D”  Ðswayed€and€repeatedly€dropped€his€foot;€during€the€walk„and„turn€test,€Defendant€turned€improperly,Ð *z  Ðraised€his€arms,€and€then€finally€gave€up,€stating€that€he€was€unable€to€complete€the€exercise.€€As€aÐ ` Ðresult€of€Defendantððs€performance€on€the€FSTs€and€Breedloveððs€experience,€he€concluded€thatÐ öF ÐDefendant€was€too€intoxicated€to€drive.Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àJohn€Harrison,€a€forensic€toxicologist€working€in€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€InvestigationÐ ¨ø Ðcrime€laboratory,€testified€that€he€analyzed€Defendantððs€blood.€€Harrison€testified€that€he€has€workedÐ ŽÞ Ðas€a€toxicologist€with€the€TBI€for€twelve€years€and€that€he€has€analyzed€in€excess€of€40,000€samplesÐ tÄ Ðin€that€time€period.€€Harrison€earned€a€B.S.€degree€in€medical€technology€and€also€worked€in€aÐ Zª Ðhospital€laboratory€for€twelve€years€prior€to€his€job€with€the€TBI.€€The€TBI€crime€laboratory€whichÐ @ Ðtested€Defendantððs€sample€received€national€accreditation€from€the€American€Society€of€Crime€LabÐ &v ÐDirectors€in€1994.€€Harrison€testified€that€the€lab€must€be€periodically€scrutinized€by€forensicÐ  \ Ðspecialists€across€the€nation€concerning€numerous€aspects€of€its€work€including€procedures,€security,Ð òB Ðpersonnel€qualifications,€and€quality€control€in€order€for€the€lab€to€maintain€its€accreditation€status.€Ð Ø( ÐIn€addition,€the€lab€is€required€to€use€standards€to€periodically€check€proficiency.€€Instruments€areÐ ¾ Ðcalibrated€and€equipment€is€checked€on€a€daily€basis.Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àHarrison€testified€at€length€regarding€his€analysis€of€Defendantððs€blood„„the€various€steps€heÐ p!À  Ðtook€and€the€theories€underlying€many€of€the€labððs€testing€procedures.€€Harrison€described€howÐ V"¦! Ðproficiency€standards€are€run€and€gave€a€cursory€explanation€of€gas€chromatography,€which€is€theÐ <#Œ" Ðscientific€method€used€by€the€TBI€for€separating€mixtures€during€blood€testing€procedures.€€HarrisonÐ "$r# Ðtestified€that,€prior€to€all€tests,€he€notes€the€condition€of€the€sample€when€received€and€runs€a€seriesÐ %X $ Ðof€standards€through€the€instrument€to€insure€proper€functioning€and€accuracy€of€the€instrument.€Ð î%>!% ÐHarrison€said€that€standards€are€typically€run€after€every€ten€samples€and€also€upon€completion€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðan€analysis.€€Regarding€Defendantððs€blood€sample,€Harrison€testified€that€it€was€received€in€goodÐ º' #' Ðcondition€and€that€the€standards€which€were€run€before€and€after€Defendantððs€blood€analysis€showedÐ  (ð#( Ðthat€the€instrument€was€operating€properly.€€Harrison€further€testified€as€to€the€crime€labððs€chain€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ðcustody€procedures:€upon€receipt€of€a€sample€(usually€via€U.S.€Postal€Service),€responsibility€for€itsÐ l*¼%* Ðâ âcare€belongs€to€the€evidence€technician€who€assigns€the€sample€a€number€and€gives€it€to€Harrison.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐHarrison€testified€that€he€then€analyzed€Defendantððs€blood€sample€and€prepared€a€report€of€the€testÐ ° Ðresults:€Defendantððs€blood€contained€0.23€gram€percent€ethyl€alcohol.€€Ð –æ Ðâ âÌà  àRegarding€the€numerous€requests€for€documents€which€Harrison€received€from€DefendantððsÐ b² Ðcounsel,€Harrison€testified€that€he€did€not€have€the€time€to€give€Defendantððs€case€the€ð ðspecialÐ H˜ Ðattentionðð€that€counsel€wanted€from€him.€€Harrison€explained€that€since€he€frequently€works€onÐ . ~ Ðthousands€of€cases€at€a€time,€he€was€waiting€for€Defendantððs€counsel€to€ð ðgo€through€channelsðð€andÐ  d Ðobtain€a€court€order€for€the€records€he€wanted.€€Harrison€testified€that€if€and€when€he€received€a€courtÐ ú J Ðorder,€he€would€then€comply€with€counselððs€requests.€€Otherwise,€he€claimed€that€he€could€notÐ à 0 Ðaccommodate€him€because€counselððs€requests€were€too€numerous.€€Harrison€testified€that€theÐ Æ   ÐDefendant€received€copies€of€the€instrument€calibration€record€for€the€actual€day€of€testing,€but€heÐ ¬ ü  Ðalso€wanted€information€for€the€six„month€period€of€time€starting€three€months€prior€to€the€date€ofÐ ’â  ÐDefendantððs€test€and€extending€three€months€afterward.€€Harrison€admitted€that€there€was€no€wayÐ xÈ  Ðfor€Defendant€to€ð ðcheck€Harrisonððs€workðð€without€the€documents€he€requested.€€Harrison€alsoÐ ^®  Ðtestified€that€it€is€TBI€laboratory€policy€to€keep€samples€for€sixty€days€after€testing€so€that€defendantsÐ D”  Ðmay€request€samples€for€independent€analysis.€€Harrison€said€that€he€received€no€such€request€fromÐ *z  ÐDefendant.€€Ð ` ÐÌà@ ìàò òII.€€FAILURE€TO€PROVIDE€DISCOVERY€MATERIALSó ó€ˆÐ Ü, ÐÌà  àDefendant€first€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€did€not€compel€the€State€to€complyÐ ¨ø Ðwith€Defendantððs€discovery€request€and€provide€him€with€numerous€documents€concerningÐ ŽÞ ÐDefendantððs€blood€alcohol€test.€€Defendant€argues€that€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16€requires€disclosure€ofÐ tÄ Ðthis€type€of€information€and€that€the€Stateððs€failure€to€comply€constitutes€a€discovery€violation.€Ð Zª ÐÌà  àIn€a€letter€to€the€State,€Defendant€requested€the€following€information€which€he€believed€wasÐ &v Ðin€the€possession€of€the€TBI€crime€laboratory:€chain€of€custody€documents;€raw€data€from€bloodÐ  \ Ðtesting,€including€handwritten€notes;€line€graphs€and€tabulated€data€printed€by€testing€equipment;Ð òB Ðsample€runs€and€associated€calibration€runs€of€testing€equipment;€TBI€standing€operating€procedureÐ Ø( Ðfor€blood€alcohol€samples,€and€methods€approved€by€TBI€for€such€testing;€the€techniques€andÐ ¾ Ðmethods€promulgated€by€the€TBI€to€ascertain€the€qualifications€and€competence€of€the€individualsÐ ¤ô Ðto€conduct€analysis,€to€operate€and€to€maintain€blood€alcohol€testing€instruments;€and€any€otherÐ Š Ú Ðdocument€generated€as€a€result€of€the€testing€of€Defendantððs€blood€sample.€€Defendant€alreadyÐ p!À  Ðpossessed€the€TBI€crime€lab€test€results€indicating€that€Defendantððs€blood€alcohol€level€was€0.23%.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àWhen€the€State€replied€that€the€defense€was€not€entitled€to€additional€information€underÐ "$r# ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16,€Defendant€filed€a€motion€to€compel.€€After€hearing€argument€and€reviewingÐ %X $ Ðbriefs€from€both€sides€on€the€matter,€the€trial€court€denied€Defendantððs€motion€on€the€ground€thatÐ î%>!% Ðthe€information€requested€was€not€discoverable€pursuant€to€Rule€16€and€held€that€the€reports€andÐ Ô&$"& Ðresults€which€had€already€been€given€Defendant€were€all€he€was€entitled€to€receive.€Ð º' #' ÐÌà  àWith€some€limitations,€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€16€requires€the€State€toÐ †)Ö$) Ðdisclose€certain€evidence€to€a€defendant€prior€to€trial.€€Section€16(a)(1)(C)€provides:Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ ÐÑ ïWÑâ  âÑeeÑâ  âÑ  Ñà8  àUpon€request€of€the€defendant,€the€state€shall€permit€the€defendant€to€inspect€andÐ ° Ðâ âcopy€or€photograph€books,€papers,€documents,€photographs,€tangible€objects,Ð –æ Ðbuildings€or€places,€or€copies€or€portions€thereof,€which€are€within€the€possession€,Ð |Ì Ðcustody€or€control€of€the€state,€and€which€are€material€to€the€preparation€of€theÐ b² ÐDefendantððs€defense€or€are€intended€for€use€by€the€state€as€evidence€in€chief€at€theÐ H˜ Ðtrial,€or€were€obtained€from€or€belong€to€the€defendant.Ð. ~Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(C).€€Furthermore,€section€16(a)(1)(D)€states€the€following:Ð ú J ÐÌà8  àUpon€request€of€a€defendant€the€state€shall€permit€the€defendant€to€inspect€and€copyÐ Æ   Ðor€photograph€any€results€or€reports€of€physical€or€mental€examinations,€and€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðscientific€tests€or€experiments,€or€copies€thereof,€which€are€within€the€possession,Ð ’â  Ðcustody€or€control€of€the€state€...€and€which€are€material€to€the€preparation€of€theÐ xÈ  Ðdefense€or€are€intended€for€use€by€the€state€as€evidence€in€chief€at€the€trial.Ð^® Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(D).Ð *z  ÐÌà  àBefore€we€address€Defendantððs€discovery€issue,€we€note€that€blood€alcohol€tests€such€as€thatÐ öF Ðperformed€on€Defendant€are€routinely€used€in€Tennessee€to€determine€whether€a€person€wasÐ Ü, Ðintoxicated€at€a€certain€time.€€òòSeeóó€Neil€P.€Cohen,€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidence€ðð€401.25€(1995).€€And,Ð Â ÐTennessee€state€law€provides€for€admissibility€of€such€tests€in€cases€involving€driving€under€theÐ ¨ø Ðinfluence€of€an€intoxicant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„407(a)€(1997).€€However,€such€tests€areÐ ŽÞ Ðadmissible€only€when€it€can€be€proven€that€the€sample€was€taken€by€a€properly€trained€person€andÐ tÄ Ðthat€a€proper€chain€of€custody€was€established€for€the€period€of€time€between€when€the€blood€wasÐ Zª Ðdrawn€and€the€time€it€was€analyzed.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„410€(1997).€€Furthermore,€theÐ @ ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€it€must€be€shown€the€testing€device€is€scientificallyÐ &v Ðacceptable€and€accurate€for€the€purpose€that€it€is€being€employed.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€717€S.W.2d€298,Ð  \ Ð303€(Tenn€Crim.€App.€1986)€(òòcitingóó€òòCrawley€v.€Stateóó,€413€S.W.2d€370,€373€(Tenn.€1967));€òòPruittÐ òB Ðv.€Stateóó,€393€S.W.2d€747,€751€(Tenn.€1965)€(overruled€on€other€grounds).€€Indeed,€the€purpose€ofÐ Ø( Ðthe€testing€is€ð ðto€provide€òòobjectiveóó€scientific€data€to€eliminate€guesswork€and€speculation€and€toÐ ¾ Ðsupplement€the€fallible€observations€of€humans.ðð€€òòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412,€417€(Tenn.Ð ¤ô Ð1992)€(òòcitingóó€òòPeterson€v.€Stateóó,€261€N.W.2d€405,€409€(S.D.€1977)€(emphasis€added)).€€It€is€thisÐ Š Ú Ðquality,€objectiveness,€which€makes€scientific€evidence€highly€consequential„„science€cannot€beÐ p!À  Ðreadily€impugned,€and€it€can€be€similarly€fruitless€to€argue€against€results€acquired€from€a€machine.€Ð V"¦! ÐIn€the€interests€of€justice,€a€court€must€do€everything€reasonably€within€its€power€to€ensure€thatÐ <#Œ" Ðscientific€evidence€is€accurate€so€as€not€to€mislead€the€finders€of€fact.€When€discovered,€inaccuraciesÐ "$r# Ðin€particular€test€results€go€only€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence,€not€its€admissibility,€with€the€weightÐ %X $ Ðto€be€given€the€evidence€a€question€of€fact€for€the€trier€of€fact€in€each€case.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€717Ð î%>!% ÐS.W.2d€298,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌà  àThe€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€ruling€that€the€State€was€not€obligated€underÐ  (ð#( ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16€to€provide€Defendant€with€the€documents€he€requested.€€The€State€furtherÐ †)Ö$) Ðpoints€out€that€Defendant€did€not€offer€any€proof€to€establish€that€the€requested€information€wasÐ l*¼%* Ðmaterial€to€the€preparation€of€his€defense;€defendant€merely€claimed€that€he€was€entitled€to€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðrequested€information€and€that€it€was€material.Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àThe€Stateððs€argument€further€relies,€in€part,€on€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€ruling€in€òòStateÐ ° Ðv.€Irickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121€(Tenn.€1988).€€òòóóThe€defendant€in€òòIrickóó€wanted€copies€of€the€expertððs€ð ðroughÐ –æ Ðresultsðð€pertaining€to€individual€characteristics€of€hair€samples€analyzed€as€part€of€a€scientific€testÐ |Ì Ðadmitted€into€evidence€against€him€at€trial.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€request,€holdingÐ b² Ðthat€the€reports€and€results€already€submitted€to€the€defendant€were€all€he€was€entitled€to€have.€€òòId.óóÐ H˜ Ðat€126.€€Our€supreme€court€affirmed€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€,€stating€that€there€was€ð ðno€violationÐ . ~ Ðof€[Rule€16]€and€the€defendant€received€all€to€which€he€was€entitled€in€the€way€of€discovery.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ  d ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€Defendant€that€accuracy€is€important€when€determining€admissibility€of€anyÐ à 0 Ðscientific€test€results€and,€therefore,€it€is€logical€to€consider€information€concerning€the€accuracy€ofÐ Æ   Ðthe€test€instruments€as€important€for€defense€purposes.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412,€416Ð ¬ ü  Ð(Tenn.€1992)€(Court€declared€that€the€ð ðdefense€is€[€]€free€to€rebut€the€Stateððs€evidence€by€callingÐ ’â  Ðwitnesses€to€challenge€the€accuracy€of€the€particular€machine...ðð€and€ð ð[e]xpert€testimony€and€theÐ xÈ  Ðrecords€of€such€procedures€[regarding€the€manner€in€which€the€instrument€performs€its€function]€areÐ ^®  Ðavailable€for€examination.ðð);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€823€S.W.2d€217,€219€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)Ð D”  Ð(evidence€of€experiments€and€examinations€of€the€intoxilyzer€which€revealed€substantialÐ *z  Ðmalfunctions€was€material€to€issue€of€guilt).€€Moreover,€we€observe€that€the€Stateððs€expert€candidlyÐ ` Ðadmitted€on€cross„examination€that€there€was€no€way€for€the€accuracy€of€his€work€to€be€checkedÐ öF Ðwithout€access€to€the€documents€Defendant€requested.€€Nevertheless,€this€one€concession€by€theÐ Ü, ÐStateððs€expert€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€proof€necessary€to€show€that€the€requested€documentationÐ Â Ðwas€discoverable.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àAfter€careful€consideration,€this€Court€is€drawn€to€the€logic€of€the€Stateððs€argument.€€This€isÐ tÄ Ðprimarily€because€Defendant€failed€to€make€an€offer€of€proof€regarding€the€materiality€of€theÐ Zª Ðdocuments€requested.€€After€a€thorough€examination€of€the€video€tape€record,€we€conclude€thatÐ @ ÐDefendantððs€counsel€has€not€provided€us€with€any€information€which€gives€us€a€basis€to€rule€in€hisÐ &v Ðfavor.€€Not€only€is€the€record€of€the€hearing€on€Defendantððs€motion€to€compel€and€Defendantððs€briefÐ  \ Ðdevoid€of€any€proof€establishing€that€the€requested€information€was€material,€the€trial€record€isÐ òB Ðdeficient€in€this€regard€as€well.€€Namely,€we€do€not€have€before€us€any€proof€concerning€whatÐ Ø( ÐDefendantððs€expert€would€specifically€require€in€the€way€of€pertinent€facts€nor€what€he€would€doÐ ¾ Ðwith€them€if€he€had€them.€€We€similarly€lack€proof€of€what€particular€documents€the€TBI€has€in€itsÐ ¤ô Ðpossession€that€would€be€helpful€and€how€the€documents€would€assist€Defendantððs€case.€€Ô‡XÕXXXÕÔNeither€hasÐ Š Ú ÐDefendant€offered€any€proof€such€as€incompetency€concerning€the€TBIððs€lab€personnel€or€historicalÐ p!À  Ðproof€of€inaccuracies€or€unreliable€results€with€respect€to€the€labððs€instruments€or€equipment.€€Ô#†XÕXXXÕÈd#ÔWeÐ V"¦! Ðfurther€observe€that€counsel€could€have€asked€that€the€trial€court€perform€an€in€camera€examinationÐ <#Œ" Ðof€the€requested€documents.€€In€sum,€since€the€State€did€not€present€the€information€in€issue€asÐ "$r# Ðevidence€during€trial€and€Defendant€did€not€offer€any€proof€as€described€above,€we€find€no€evidenceÐ %X $ Ðthat€the€requested€documents€were€material.€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð î%>!% ÐÌà@@@ìàò òIII.€€MOTION€TO€QUASHó ó€ˆÐ º' #' ÐÌà  àDefendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€quashed€Defendantððs€subpoenaÐ †)Ö$) Ðduces€tecum€which€requested€the€Stateððs€expert€to€bring€the€documentation€previously€ruled€non„Ð l*¼%* Ðdiscoverable€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16€to€trial.€€We€disagree.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÐ 8,ˆ', Ðà  àAfter€the€State€denied€Defendantððs€request€for€additional€discovery€information€pursuant€toÐ ° ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16,€Defendant€filed€a€motion€to€compel€on€November€6,€1998.€€When€the€courtÐ –æ Ðdenied€this€motion€on€December€28,€1998,€Defendant€thereafter€requested€five€subpoenas€ducesÐ |Ì Ðtecum€for€service€upon€the€Stateððs€expert€witness,€requiring€him€to€bring€the€documents€previouslyÐ b² Ðruled€non„discoverable€under€Rule€16€with€him€when€he€testified€at€trial.€€The€State€filed€a€motionÐ H˜ Ðto€quash€on€November€15,€1999,€which€was€granted€in€a€jury„out€hearing€held€during€the€trial€whichÐ . ~ Ðbegan€on€November€16,€1999.Ð  d ÐÌà  àThe€State€argues€that€Defendant€should€not€be€allowed€to€use€Rule€17€to€skirt€the€courtððsÐ à 0 Ðdenial€of€discovery€under€Rule€16.€€In€so€arguing,€the€State€relies€on€òòState€v.€Quinton€Cageóó,€No.Ð Æ   Ð01C01„9605„CC„00179,€1999€WL€30595,€Montgomery€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.Ð ¬ ü  Ð26,€1999),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1999).€€€In€òòCageóó,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€discoveryÐ ’â  Ðpursuant€to€Rule€16€requesting€that€the€State€provide€the€materials€used€by€the€Stateððs€DNA€expertÐ xÈ  Ðto€arrive€at€his€test€conclusions.€€This€motion€and€a€subsequent€motion€to€compel€were€both€deniedÐ ^®  Ðon€the€ground€that€the€materials€requested€were€non„discoverable€ð ðwork€product.ðð€€Thereafter,€theÐ D”  Ðdefendant€caused€to€be€issued€a€subpoena€duces€tecum,€directing€the€Stateððs€expert€to€appear€at€trialÐ *z  Ðwith€the€exact€same€materials€previously€ruled€non„discoverable.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€StateððsÐ ` Ðmotion€to€quash€the€subpoena€duces€tecum,€declaring€that€the€defendant€ð ðcould€not€circumvent€theÐ öF Ðdiscovery€protections€of€Rule€16€by€issuing€a€subpoena€for€the€same€materials€under€Rule€17.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ Ü, Ðat€*8.€This€Court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€on€appeal,€remarking€that€ð ðthe€limits€of€RuleÐ Â Ð16(a)(2)€would€be€meaningless€if€a€defendant€could€simply€subpoena€the€protected€materials€underÐ ¨ø ÐRule€17(c).ðð€€òòId.óó€at€*9.€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà  àFollowing€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€agree€with€the€State€that€the€trialÐ Zª Ðcourt€correctly€granted€the€Stateððs€motion€to€quash€Defendantððs€subpoenas€duces€tecum,€but€forÐ @ Ðdifferent€reasons.€€We€do€not€agree€with€the€Stateððs€contention€that€materials€previously€ruled€non„Ð &v Ðdiscoverable€under€Rule€16€are€never€subject€to€a€subpoena€duces€tecum€for€trial.€€This€CourtððsÐ  \ Ðholding€in€òòCageóó,€upon€which€the€State€heavily€relies€for€that€assertion,€is€distinguishable€from€theÐ òB Ðpresent€case€on€the€facts.€€Some€information€non„discoverable€under€Rule€16€may€be€legitimatelyÐ Ø( Ðacquired€by€subpoena€duces€tecum.€€For€example,€material€not€ð ðwithin€the€possession,€custody€orÐ ¾ Ðcontrol€of€the€stateðð€is€non„discoverable€under€Rule€16.€€This,€òòin€itselfóó,€does€not€prevent€a€defendantÐ ¤ô Ðfrom€acquiring€the€material€by€subpoena€duces€tecum€if€the€circumstances€otherwise€permit.€Ð Š Ú ÐÌà  àRule€17(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€as€follows:Ð V"¦! ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò(c)€For€Production€of€Documentary€Evidence€and€of€Objects.€€AÐ "$r# Ðsubpoena€may€also€command€a€person€to€whom€it€is€directed€toÐ %X $ Ðproduce€the€books,€papers,€documents,€or€tangible€things€designatedÐ î%>!% Ðtherein.€€The€court,€upon€motion€made€promptly€and€in€any€event€byÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€time€specified€in€the€subpoena€for€compliance€therewith,€mayÐ º' #' Ðquash€or€modify€the€subpoena€if€compliance€would€be€unreasonableÐ  (ð#( Ðor€oppressive.€€The€court€may€condition€denial€of€the€motion€upon€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðadvancement€by€the€party€in€whose€behalf€the€subpoena€is€issued€ofÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€reasonable€cost€of€producing€the€books,€papers,€documents€orÐ R+¢&+ Ðtangible€things.€€The€court€may€direct€that€books,€papers,€documentsÐ 8,ˆ', Ðor€tangible€things€designated€in€the€subpoena€be€produced€before€theÐ ° Ðcourt€at€a€time€prior€to€the€trial€or€prior€to€the€time€when€they€are€toÐ –æ Ðbe€offered€in€evidence€and€may€upon€their€production€permit€them€toÐ |Ì Ðbe€inspected€by€the€parties€and€their€attorneys.Ð b² ÐÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÌà  àAs€can€be€seen,€the€trial€court€is€permitted€to€quash€or€modify€a€subpoena€duces€tecum€ifÐ . ~ Ðcompliance€would€be€unreasonable€or€oppressive.€€The€appellate€record€indicates€that€the€StateÐ  d Ðargued€in€the€trial€court€that€compliance€would€be€unduly€burdensome,€i.e.,€ð ðunreasonable€andÐ ú J Ðoppressive,ðð€in€conjunction€with€arguing€that€the€documents€were€not€discoverable€and€therefore€notÐ à 0 Ðsubject€to€being€subpoenaed€for€trial.€€Defendant€did€not€offer€any€proof€that€compliance€with€theÐ Æ   Ðsubpoena€was€òònotóó€ð ðunreasonable€or€oppressive.ðð€€Neither€did€he€offer€to€advance€the€costs€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðproducing€the€documents€(he€was€not€indigent).€€In€other€words,€the€record€is€inadequate€to€permitÐ ’â  Ðthis€Court€to€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€granting€the€motion€to€quash.€€Even€if€we€held€that€itÐ xÈ  Ðwas€error€to€quash€the€subpoena,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ ^®  Ðdecision€was€anything€more€than€harmless€error.€€Ð D”  ÐÌà  àAs€in€the€situation€involving€Defendantððs€motion€to€compel€discovery€under€Rule€16,Ð ` ÐDefendant€failed€to€offer€any€proof,€in€an€ð ðoffer€of€proofðð€or€otherwise,€which€would€allow€this€courtÐ öF Ðto€grant€him€the€relief€he€seeks€on€appeal.€€Therefore,€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.Ð Ü, ÐÌà@é é ìàIV.€ADMISSIBILITY€OF€EXPERT€TESTIMONYˆÐ ¨ø Ðà  àÌà  àNext,€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€permitted€the€Stateððs€expert€toÐ tÄ Ðtestify.€€Specifically,€Defendant€argues€that€the€State€offered€expert€opinion€evidence€without€layingÐ Zª Ða€proper€foundation€as€required€under€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€702€and€703.€€We€disagree.Ð @ ÐÌà  àGenerally,€the€admissibility€of€evidence€is€governed€by€standards€of€relevancy€and€reliability.€Ð  \ ÐòòState€v.€Begleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€471,€475€(Tenn.1997);€Tenn.€€R.€Evid.€402.€€Our€supreme€court€set€theÐ òB Ðstandards€governing€admissibility€of€expert€scientific€proof€in€Tennessee€in€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSXÐ Ø( ÐTransp.€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.1997):€Ð ¾ ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€Tennessee,€under€the€recent€rules,€a€trial€court€must€determine€whether€theÐ Š Ú Ðevidence€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue€andÐ p!À  Ðwhether€the€facts€and€data€underlying€the€evidence€indicate€a€lack€of€trustworthiness.€Ð V"¦! ÐThe€rules€together€necessarily€require€a€determination€as€to€the€scientific€validity€orÐ <#Œ" Ðreliability€of€the€evidence.€€Simply€put,€unless€the€scientific€evidence€is€valid,€it€willÐ "$r# Ðnot€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact,€nor€will€its€underlying€facts€and€data€appearÐ %X $ Ðto€be€trustworthy,€but€there€is€no€requirement€in€the€rule€that€it€be€generally€accepted.€Ð î%>!% ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à.€.€.€[T]he€non-exclusive€list€of€factors€to€determine€reliability€are€useful€inÐ º' #' Ðapplying€our€Rules€702€and€703.€€A€Tennessee€trial€court€may€consider€inÐ  (ð#( Ðdetermining€reliability:€(1)€whether€scientific€evidence€has€been€tested€and€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðmethodology€with€which€it€has€been€tested;€(2)€whether€the€evidence€has€beenÐ l*¼%* Ðsubjected€to€peer€review€or€publication;€(3)€whether€a€potential€rate€of€error€isÐ R+¢&+ Ðknown;€(4)€whether,€as€formerly€required€by€òòFryeóó,€the€evidence€is€generally€acceptedÐ 8,ˆ', Ðin€the€scientific€community;€and€(5)€whether€the€expert's€research€in€the€field€hasÐ ° Ðbeen€conducted€independent€of€litigation.€€Ð–æÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAlthough€the€trial€court€must€analyze€the€science€and€not€merely€theÐ b² Ðqualifications,€demeanor€or€conclusions€of€experts,€the€court€need€not€weigh€orÐ H˜ Ðchoose€between€two€legitimate€but€conflicting€scientific€views.€€The€court€insteadÐ . ~ Ðmust€assure€itself€that€the€opinions€are€based€on€relevant€scientific€methods,Ð  d Ðprocesses,€and€data,€and€not€upon€an€expert's€mere€speculation.€€Ðú JÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àòòMcDanielóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àThe€admissibility€of€expert€and€scientific€evidence€in€particular€is€also€governed€by€RulesÐ ’â  Ð702€and€703€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€noted€above.€€The€former€provides:Ð xÈ  ÐÌà8  àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assist€theÐ D”  Ðtrier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witnessÐ *z  Ðqualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€mayÐ ` Ðtestify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.ÐöFÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€And,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703€states:Ð Â ÐÌà8  àThe€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€which€an€expert€bases€an€opinion€orÐ ŽÞ Ðinference€may€be€those€perceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€before€theÐ tÄ Ðhearing.€€If€of€a€type€reasonably€relied€upon€by€experts€in€the€particular€field€inÐ Zª Ðforming€opinions€or€inferences€upon€the€subject,€the€facts€or€data€need€not€beÐ @ Ðadmissible€in€evidence.€€The€court€shall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinionÐ &v Ðor€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€data€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€703.Ð Ø( ÐÌà  àThe€decision€to€admit€scientific€evidence€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€willÐ ¤ô Ðnot€be€disturbed€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Begleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€471,€475€(Tenn.1997).Ð Š Ú ÐThe€trial€court€rules€on€questions€regarding€the€admissibility,€qualifications,€relevancy€andÐ p!À  Ðcompetency€of€expert€testimony.€€òòMcDanielóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€263.€€Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àIn€Tennessee,€therefore,€a€trial€court€must€first€determine€(1)€whether€the€evidence€willÐ "$r# Ðsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue€and€(2)€whether€the€facts€and€dataÐ %X $ Ðunderlying€the€evidence€indicate€a€lack€of€trustworthiness.€€òòId.óó€at€265.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,Ð î%>!% Ðwe€conclude€that€the€expertððs€testimony€regarding€Defendantððs€blood€alcohol€content€was€relevantÐ Ô&$"& Ðand€substantially€assisted€the€jury€as€required€under€òòMcDanielóó.€€The€relevance€of€the€driverððs€bloodÐ º' #' Ðalcohol€in€a€DUI€case€is€plainð!ðit€is€an€element€of€the€offense.€€Consequently,€reliable€informationÐ  (ð#( Ðregarding€Defendantððs€blood€alcohol€content€is€helpful€to€a€jury.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€we€find€no€facts€or€data€which€would€indicate€a€lack€of€trustworthinessÐ R+¢&+ Ðrespecting€the€Stateððs€expert€witness.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€the€Stateððs€witness€wasÐ 8,ˆ', Ðð ðqualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€educationðð€in€accordance€withÐ ° ÐRule€702€and,€after€a€review€of€the€record,€we€agree.€€€Harrison€appeared€to€be€knowledgeable€andÐ –æ Ðexperienced€in€his€field€of€work:€he€has€worked€as€a€TBI€toxicologist€for€twelve€years€and€analyzedÐ |Ì Ðin€excess€of€40,000€blood€samples.€€Furthermore,€Harrison€testified€at€length€regarding€his€analysisÐ b² Ðof€Defendantððs€blood,€the€steps€he€took€and€the€theories€underlying€many€of€the€testing€procedures.€Ð H˜ ÐIn€order€for€the€TBI€crime€lab€to€maintain€its€accreditation,€Harrisonððs€test€results€are€continuallyÐ . ~ Ðmonitored€and€checked€by€independent€agencies.€€In€short,€we€concur€with€the€trial€courtððs€view€thatÐ  d ÐHarrisonððs€education€and€training,€which€includes€a€B.S.€degree€in€medical€technology€and€work€inÐ ú J Ða€hospital€laboratory€for€twelve€years€prior€to€his€extensive€experience€with€the€TBI,€are€sufficientÐ à 0 Ðto€qualify€him€as€an€expert.€Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àAgain,€we€note€that€blood€alcohol€tests€are€routinely€used€in€Tennessee€to€determine€whetherÐ ’â  Ða€person€was€driving€while€intoxicated.€€These€types€of€standardized€tests€have€long€been€recognizedÐ xÈ  Ðby€experts€in€the€field€as€scientifically€valid€and€reliable;€thus,€they€fulfill€the€requirements€outlinedÐ ^®  Ðin€òòMcDanielóó€and€meet€the€trustworthiness€standard€in€Rule€703.€€The€fact€that€the€TBIððs€crime€labÐ D”  Ðis€accredited€satisfies€two€ð ðreliabilityðð€factors€under€òòMcDanielóó:€(1)€the€scientific€evidence€andÐ *z  Ðmethodology€has€been€tested€and€(2)€the€rate€of€error€is€acceptable€as€a€matter€of€record.€€For€theÐ ` Ðreasons€stated€above,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion.€€Defendant€is€notÐ öF Ðentitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.à h àÐ Ü, ÐÌà@ÄÄìàò òV.€€LIMITATION€OF€PROOFó óˆÐ ¨ø Ðà  àÌà  àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€limited€Defendantððs€proof€at€trialÐ tÄ Ðregarding€the€arresting€officerððs€motive.€€Defendant€argues€that€this€limitation€deprived€DefendantÐ Zª Ðof€his€right€to€due€process€and€a€fair€trial.€€We€disagree.Ð @ ÐÌà  àSpecifically,€Defendant€sought€to€question€Officer€Breedlove€about€his€motive€forÐ  \ ÐDefendantððs€arrest.€€It€was€Defendantððs€contention€that€Officer€Breedlove€did€not€arrest€DefendantÐ òB Ðbecause€he€was€driving€while€intoxicated,€but€because€the€officer€wanted€to€seize€DefendantððsÐ Ø( Ðexpensive€new€truck.€€Defendant€maintained€that€the€other€driver€escaped€arrest€because€he€wasÐ ¾ Ðdriving€an€older€model.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€Stateððs€objection€to€defense€counselððs€line€ofÐ ¤ô Ðquestioning€concerning€motive,€then€informed€counsel€during€a€sidebar€conference€that,€if€he€wereÐ Š Ú Ðto€persist,€it€would€open€the€door€for€the€State€to€introduce€evidence€of€Defendantððs€prior€DUIÐ p!À  Ðconviction.€€Based€on€this€ruling,€defense€counsel€abandoned€the€discussion€of€the€officerððs€motive.Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àThe€motive€of€an€arresting€officer€is€not€relevant€where€the€officer€can€show€that€sufficientÐ "$r# Ðprobable€cause€existed€to€believe€that€a€crime€had€been€committed.€€Put€another€way,€the€underlyingÐ %X $ Ðintent€or€motivation€of€officers€involved€in€an€arrest€or€seizure€is€immaterial€where€the€activityÐ î%>!% Ðundertaken€is€precisely€the€same€as€would€have€occurred€had€the€intent€or€motivation€been€entirelyÐ Ô&$"& Ðabsent€from€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòAbel€v.€United€Statesóó,€362€U.S.€217,€80€S.Ct.€683,€4€L.Ed.2d€668€(1960);Ð º' #' ÐòòState€v.€Vineyardóó,€958€S.W.2d€730,€736€(Tenn.€1997)€(probable€cause€justifies€a€traffic€stop€underÐ  (ð#( ÐArticle€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€without€regard€to€the€subjective€motivations€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ðpolice€officers).Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ Ðà  à€Officer€Breedloveððs€alleged€subjective€intent€concerning€Defendantððs€vehicle€is€not€relevantÐ ° Ðâ âif€Breedlove€had€sufficient€probable€cause€to€stop€Defendant.€€Clearly,€Breedlove€had€the€requisiteÐ –æ Ðprobable€cause€when€he€observed€Defendant€and€his€friend€driving€at€twenty€miles€per€hour€over€theÐ |Ì Ðposted€speed€limit.€€Moreover,€Defendant€gave€Breedlove€probable€cause€for€arresting€him€when€heÐ b² Ðfailed€the€field€sobriety€tests€and€presented€the€appearance€of€a€man€who€was€intoxicated.€€Thus,Ð H˜ ÐDefendantððs€argument€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€limited€Defendantððs€proof€at€trial€regardingÐ . ~ Ðthe€Officer€Breedloveððs€motive€for€Defendantððs€arrest€and€subsequent€seizure€of€his€vehicle€isÐ  d Ðwithout€merit.€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð ú J ÐÌà@ŒŒ#ìàò òVI.€€CONCLUSIONó óˆà È àÐ Æ   ÐÌà  àFor€the€forgoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ’â  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð *z  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ ` ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à