ÿWPCa! …# VUNa %¯ 0(µwÞÝ4» Ï Þ 0–æ 0D| 1mÀ 0J- w 0d} 0Tá 0^5 0h“ 0rû 0|m 0†é 0o 1uÿ 0dt BØU>õB)3DC\U*Ÿ D3É AMüäI 0@-v~mvÓë 0¾ 0ŠM 0 × 0´w 0Ç+ 0Ûò 0ïÍ AO¼Æ 0DÑ D/! BD!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡OE€Re‚r‚ƒr‚„D…2e†U‡DˆD‰Š‹DŒ ŽE‘’D“D”e•D–—D˜™Eš›œDžDŸ D¡D¢D£¤¥D¦§E¨D©ªD«¬D­®D¯V°±E²³E´Eµ¶·D¸D¹Dº»D¼½D¾[¿ÀÁ{ÂEÃDÄDÅUÆDÇUÈÉÊËFeÌDÍÓ€Ô¡¨ È3|xÖ(F(2ôÉ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóótuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔH(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial'ÿÿdxd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌSeptember€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÔ€)ÔÔ€)ŠÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€+,(A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLE€óóÌÌà@ àAPRIL€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à*à àC.C.A.€#€¢01C01£„9606„CR„00275Ì€Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à*à àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌ¢VS£.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Fred€A.€Kelly,€III,€JudgeÌÌDOUGLAS€RUSSELL€DELOIT,*à à(DUI)Ìà àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà à*ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àòòà àFor€Appellee:óóÌà àÌC.€Edward€Fowlkesà àà àà àCharles€W.€¢Burson£ÌFowkles€&€Whitesideà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ¢£172€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌSuite€214à àà ࢣà àà àà ࢣLisa€A.€NaylorÌNashville,€TN€€37201à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493à àÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGeorge€R.€BondsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37201„1649ÌÌÌ¢£ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÔ€&ÔÔ€&XÔÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€)ÔÌÑ7€ îXXdðXXdð7ÑOPINIONó óóóÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€Douglas€Russell€Deloit,€was€convicted€of€drivingÏunder€the€influence.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€jail€sentence€of€eleven€months€andÏtwenty„nine€days,€suspended€all€but€forty„eight€hours,€and€barred€the€defendantÏfrom€driving€for€one€year.€€In€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€challenges€theÏadmission€into€evidence€of€breath€test€results€and€argues€that€the€evidence€isÏotherwise€insufficient€to€sustain€the€conviction.€€We€agree€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€admitting€the€test€results.€€The€judgment€is,€therefore,€reversed€and€the€causeÏremanded€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Wallace€Taylor€testified€that€he€worked€for€the€DavidsonÏCounty€Metropolitan€Police€Department€on€the€DUI€Task€Force.€€In€the€earlyÏmorning€hours€of€February€24,€1995,€Officer€Taylor€observed€the€defendant'sÏvehicle€"roll€through€a€stop€sign."€€When€the€officer€then€stopped€the€defendant€andÏasked€for€his€driver's€license,€he€noticed€"a€very€strong€odor€of€alcohol"€andÍobserved€that€"[h]is€eyes€were€watery€and€his€speech€was€slurred."€€Officer€TaylorÏconducted€field€sobriety€tests,€concluded€the€defendant€was€intoxicated,€and€madeÏthe€arrest.€€€The€defendant,€who€admitted€that€he€had€consumed€five€"Sam€Adams"Ïbeers€that€night,€registered€a€.17€on€the€breath€alcohol€test.€€ÌÌà àà àJames€E.€Jones,€who€had€been€a€friend€to€the€defendant€for€severalÏyears,€testified€he€œhad€had›€chips€and€a€beer€with€the€defendant€at€about€6:00€orÏ7:00€p.m.€the€night€before€his€arrest.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€appeared€to€beÏsober.€€Another€friend,€Patty€Swint,€testified€that€she€met€the€defendant€aroundÏ11:30€p.m.€at€a€restaurant.€€She€recalled€that€they€shared€a€pizza€and€theÏdefendant€consumed€two€beers.€€She€claimed€that€when€she€left€the€restaurant€atÏaround€12:45€a.m.,€only€a€short€while€before€the€arrest,€the€defendant€appearedÏ"totally€normal."€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€had€met€Jones€to€discuss€a€businessÏopportunity.€€He€insisted€that€he€had€one€beer€while€he€was€waiting€for€Jones€andÏhad€only€one€more€during€their€business€conversation.€€After€the€meeting,€theÏdefendant€returned€to€his€home€before€an€arranged€meeting€with€Ms.€Swint€toÏdiscuss€his€marital€problems.€€The€defendant€recalled€that€he€arrived€at€theÏrestaurant€first,€had€a€beer€while€he€waited,€and€then€had€a€second€beer€with€hisÍmeal.€€Stopped€by€Officer€Taylor€on€his€way€home€from€the€restaurant,€theÏdefendant€admitted€that€he€made€a€"rolling€stop"€through€an€intersection.€€HeÏremembered€€telling€the€officer€that€"over€the€course€of€about€five€hours€[he]€hadÏabout€four€[beers]."€€The€defendant€claimed€that€he€performed€well€on€the€fieldÏsobriety€tests€and€was€surprised€when€the€officer€asked€him€to€do€a€breath€test.Ì€€Ìà@ àò òòòIssuesóóó óÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€breath€testÏevidence€on€three€separate€grounds:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(I)€€Officer€Taylor€was€not€qualified€to€administer€andÏtestify€regarding€the€breath€test;ÌÌ(II)€€the€testing€device€was€not€regularly€calibrated;€andÌÌ(III)€€the€officer€did€not€observe€the€defendant€for€theÏrequisite€twenty€minutes€prior€to€testing.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌÌà àà àWe€will€address€each€of€the€three€issues€in€the€order€they€wereÏpresented.€€ÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àThe€first€argument€is€that€the€testing€officer€was€not€qualified€to€testifyÏabout€the€results.€€In€order€to€assess€the€merits€of€this€contention,€a€review€of€theÍprogression€of€the€law€is€in€order.€€Traditionally,€the€testifying€officer€has€beenÏrequired€to€"interpret€the€test€results€in€evidence"€as€a€prerequisite€to€admissibility.€ÏòòPruitt€v.€Stateóó,€393€S.W.2d€747,€751€(Tenn.€1965).€€The€state€was€required€to€"showÏthat€the€measuring€device€[was]€scientifically€acceptable€and€accurate€...€and€thatÏthe€witness€who€presents€the€test€results€is€qualified€to€interpret€them."€€òòId.óó€€In€òòPruittóó,Ïour€supreme€court€ruled€that€a€contrary€holding€"would€be€to€approve€pure€hearsayÏevidence€of€intoxication."€€òòId.óó€at€752.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€717€S.W.2d€298Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).ÌÌà àà àIn€1985,€our€statutory€scheme€was€amended€to€establish€a€statewideÏprocedure€for€administering€breath€tests€in€such€a€manner€as€to€ensure€reliabilityÏand€accuracy:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(d)€(2)€€Upon€approval€of€the€director€of€the€TennesseeÏbureau€of€investigation,€local€governing€bodies€whichÏhave€the€responsibility€for€providing€funding€for€sheriffs'Ïoffices€and€òòpolice€departments,€are€authorized€toÏpurchase€from€state€contracts€approved€for€bureauÏpurchases,€scientific€instruments€designed€to€examine€aÏperson's€breath€and€measure€the€alcohol€contentÏthereofóó,€for€use€as€evidence€in€the€trial€of€cases;Ïprovided,€that€òòprior€to€use€thereof,€such€instruments€mustÏbe€delivered€to€the€forensic€services€division€of€theÏbureau€for€testing€and€certification€pursuant€toÏsubsection€(g)óó.€€The€bureau€shall€continue€to€maintainÏand€certify€the€instruments€and€operating€personnel,Ïpursuant€to€subsection€(g),€and€furnish€expert€testimonyÏin€support€of€the€use€of€such€instruments€when€required.ÌÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  ÓÌ(g)€€òòThe€bureau,€through€its€forensic€services€division,Ïshall€establish,€authorize,€approve€and€certifyÏtechniques,€methods,€procedures€and€instruments€forÏthe€scientific€examination€and€analysis€of€evidenceóó,Ïincluding€blood,€urine,€breath€or€other€bodilyÏsubstances,€and€òòteach€and€certify€qualifying€personnelóóÏin€the€operation€of€such€instruments€to€meet€theÏrequirements€of€the€law€for€the€admissibility€of€evidence.€ÏòòWhen€examinations,€tests€and€analyses€have€beenÏperformed€in€compliance€with€such€standards€andÏprocedures,€the€results€shall€be€prima€facie€admissibleÏinto€evidence€in€any€judicial€or€quasi„judicialÏproceeding,€subject€to€the€rules€of€evidence€asÏadministered€by€the€courts.óóÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€38„6„103€(d)(2),€(g)€(emphasis€added)€(1985€Tenn.€Pub.€ActÏ124,€ðððð€1,€3).ÌÌà àà àThereafter,€our€supreme€court€established€the€general€foundationalÏrequirements€for€the€admissibility€of€breath€tests.€€òòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2dÏ412€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€òòSensingóó,€the€court€ruled€that€the€testing€officer€must€be€able€toÏtestify€to€the€following:€Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓ(1)€€that€the€tests€were€performed€in€accordance€with€theÏstandards€and€operating€procedure€promulgated€by€theÏforensic€services€division€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€that€[the€testing€officer]€was€properly€certified€inÍaccordance€with€those€standards;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€that€the€evidentiary€breath€testing€instrument€usedÏwas€certified€by€the€forensic€services€division,€wasÏtested€regularly€for€accuracy€and€was€working€properlyÏwhen€the€breath€test€was€performed;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€€that€the€motorist€was€observed€for€the€requisite€20Ïminutes€prior€to€the€test,€and€during€this€period,€he€didÏnot€have€foreign€matter€in€his€mouth,€did€not€consumeÏany€alcoholic€beverage,€smoke,€or€regurgitate;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€evidence€that€[the€testing€officer]€followed€theÏprescribed€operational€procedure;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€[that€the€testing€officer]€identify€the€printout€recordÏoffered€in€evidence€as€the€result€of€the€test€given€to€theÏperson€tested.€€ÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€416.€€In€1995,€our€supreme€court€described€òòSensingóó€as€establishing€theÏ"prerequisites€for€threshold€admissibility"€of€breath€alcohol€test€results.€€òòState€v.ÏBoboóó,€909€S.W.2d€788,€790€(Tenn.€1995).€€A€question€left€unanswered€in€theÏòòSensingóó€opinion€was€whether€this€same€standard€would€apply€to€counties€whichÏdid€not€utilize€the€program€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€38„6„103.€€TheÏIntoximeter€3000,€"the€testing€device€in€general€use€in€the€State€of€Tennessee"€wasÏat€issue€in€òòSensingóó.€€843€S.W.2d€at€415.€€The€court€observed€that€at€that€timeÏneither€Davidson€nor€Shelby€Counties€used€the€Intoximeter€3000.€€843€S.W.2d€atÏ414,€n.€1.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€if€òòSensingóó€does€not€apply,€then€the€stateÏmust€proceed€under€òòPruittóó€and€the€officer€must€be€qualified€as€an€expert€whoÏunderstands€the€technical€workings€of€the€machine.€€The€defendant€insists€the€stateÏhas€failed€to€lay€an€adequate€foundation€under€the€rulings€of€either€òòSensingóó€orÏòòPruittóó.€€The€state€contends€that€òòSensingóó€does€not€apply€in€counties€that€do€not€useÏthe€statutory€program.€€€€€ÌÌà àà àAt€least€two€unpublished€opinions€of€our€court€have€suggested€thatÏthe€òòSensingóó€requirements€do€not€apply€if€the€county€does€not€participate€in€theÏstatutory€program.€€In€òòState€v.€Barbara€Gallegosóó,€No.€02C01„9305„CR„00084Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€May€25,€1994),€the€defendant€was€tested€in€ShelbyÏCounty€on€the€Alcomat€breathalyzer.€€She€argued€that€the€"trial€court€erred€in€failingÏto€require€the€state€to€produce€a€certification€that€the€Alcomat€testing€device€...€hadÏbeen€approved€...€by€an€independent€forensic€agency€and€had€been€periodicallyÏinspected€for€accuracy€by€that€agency."€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€2.€€This€court€affirmed€theÏconviction€€holding€that€"Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€38„6„103€(1991)€has€no€application€toÏtesting€equipment€utilized€in€Shelby€and€Davidson€Counties,"€observing€that€"[b]othÏcounties€operate€a€program€independent€of€the€procedure€provided€by€theÏForensic€Services€Division€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation."€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.Ïat€4„5.€€In€òòState€v.€Jeffery€H.€Riversóó,€No.€02C01„9203„CR„00070€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Íat€Jackson,€July€14,€1993),€the€defendant€argued€the€breath€test€should€not€haveÏbeen€administered€because€the€officer€failed€to€observe€him€for€the€required€periodÏof€time.€€The€court€ruled€that€the€"six€[òòSensingóó]€prerequisites€for€admission€of€theÏtest€results€are€crafted€for€use€in€cases€where€the€county€participates€in€the€deviceÏcertification€program€administered€by€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€andÏthe€testing€device€is€an€òòIntoximeter€3000óó."€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€4.ÌÌà àà àNeither€òòGallegosóó€nor€òòRiversóó€address€what€type€of€foundation€shouldÏbe€established€if€òòSensingóó€does€not€apply.€€Given€the€fact€that€the€breath€test€resultsÏmay€result€in€the€"presumption€that€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence,"€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408(b),€an€evidentiary€foundation€must€be€required€in€order€toÏassure€reliability.€€We€conclude€that€if€the€state€does€not€proceed€under€òòSensingóó,Ïthe€state€must€proceed€under€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€and€a€foundationÏwhich€ensures€reliability€of€the€test€results€must€first€be€established€before€theÏevidence€is€permitted.€€ÌÌà àà àThis€approach€has€been€adopted€by€at€least€one€other€jurisdiction;€inÏòòState€v.€Brooksóó,€643€A.2d€226€(Vt.€1993),€the€Vermont€Supreme€Court€considered€aÏstatute€which€required€its€department€of€health€to€promulgate€rules€on€how€toÏconduct€breath€tests.€€òòId.óó€at€227.€€The€statute€provided€that€"analysis€performed€byÍthe€state€shall€be€considered€valid€when€performed€according€to€a€method€orÏmethods€selected€by€the€department€of€health."€€€òòId.óó€(quoting€23€V.S.A.€ðð€1203€(d)).€ÏIn€òòBrooksóó,€the€defendant€established€that€the€department€had€not€complied€with€theÏstatute's€rule„making€requirements.€€òòId.óó€€The€state€argued€that€the€results€shouldÏnevertheless€be€allowed€if€"scientific€reliability€of€the€[test€in€general]€and€theÏtrustworthiness€of€the€defendant's€test€result€in€particular"€had€been€established.€ÏòòId.óó€at€228.€€The€Vermont€Supreme€Court€ruled€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àCompliance€with€the€statutory€rule„makingÏrequirement€is€mandatory€only€to€the€extent€that€theÏState€wishes€to€benefit€from€the€presumption€of€validity.€ÏThe€statute€does€not€state€or€imply€that€department€rule„making€is€a€prerequisite€to€admissibility€....€€Without€aÏstatutory€basis€for€excluding€the€[test],€the€rules€ofÏevidence€determine€whether€[the€results]€are€admissible.Ìà àDUI€test€results€may€be€proved€by€traditionalÏevidentiary€means.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòId.óó€at€228.ÌÌà àà àOur€view€is€that€if€the€state€complies€with€the€requirements€of€òòSensingóó,€Ïit€is€entitled€to€the€presumption€that€the€test€results€are€reliable€and€the€results€mayÏbe€admitted€into€evidence€without€the€benefit€of€an€expert.€€If€not,€the€state€may€stillÏuse€traditional€rules€of€evidence€to€lay€the€foundation€for€admitting€the€evidence€butÏthere€is€no€presumption€of€reliability.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702,€703.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€909€S.W.2d€788€(Tenn.€1995),€a€case€in€which€theÏstate€conceded€the€prescribed€operational€procedure€had€not€been€followed,€ourÏsupreme€court€included€language€which€implies€that€the€òòSensingóó€requirementsÏmust€be€met€every€time€the€state€attempts€to€admit€breath€test€results.€€òòId.óó€at€789.€ÏThe€state€offered€a€forensic€scientist€who€determined€the€sample€was€sufficient€forÏa€"valid€test."€€òòId.óó€€The€forensic€scientist€believed€that€the€test€was€valid€and€theÏdeviation€would€have€actually€benefitted€the€defendant€by€giving€a€lower€reading.€ÏòòId.óó€€The€state€contended€that€because€the€deviation€benefitted€the€defendant,€theÏtest€results€should€have€been€admitted.€€Our€supreme€court€disagreed:€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓòòSensingóó€established€the€prerequisites€for€thresholdÏadmissibility€of€breath€alcohol€test€results.€€While€itÏrelaxed€òòPruitt'sóó€more€strenuous€admissibilityÏrequirements,€it€did€not€remove€all€requirements€forÏthreshold€admissibility.€€The€prerequisites€toÏadmissibility€in€òòSensingóó€are€just€that:€€prerequisites€toÏadmissibility.€€They€are€not€factors€for€determining€theÏweight€of€the€evidence.€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòBoboóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€790.€€In€òòBoboóó,€the€court€also€refers€to€òòSensingóó€as€theÏ"unambiguous€threshold€admissibility€requirements."€€òòId.óó€at€789.€€This€language,€ifÏgiven€a€broad€interpretation,€might€mean€that€òòSensingóó€is€the€exclusive€means€ofÏadmitting€breath€test€results.€€We€do€not€believe€that€our€supreme€court€intendedÏsuch€a€sweeping€construction.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòBoboóó,€our€high€court€ruled€as€admissible€"test€results€offeredÍòòthrough€the€testimony€of€the€testing€officeróó."€€òòBoboóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€789€(emphasisÏadded).€€Our€inference€is€that€the€holding€should€be€limited€in€circumstances€inÏwhich€the€state,€through€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€38„6„103(g),€seeks€to€admit€the€testÏresults€through€the€testimony€of€the€non„expert€testing€officer.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€38„6„103(g)€(when€tests€have€been€performed€in€compliance€with€theÏstatute,€the€results€are€"prima€facie€admissible").ÌÌà àà àThe€ruling€in€òòBoboóó€provides€that€once€the€state€decides€to€proceedÏunder€òòSensingóó,€which€relaxed€traditional€requirements€of€admissibility,€there€canÏbe€no€further€relaxation€of€the€rules.€€The€supreme€court€held€that€"[w]hile€itÏ[òòSensingóó]€relaxed€òòPruitt'sóó€more€strenuous€admissibility€requirements,€it€did€notÏremove€all€requirements€for€threshold€admissibility."€€òòBoboóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€790.€€InÏòòBoboóó,€the€state€admitted€to€non„compliance€with€òòSensingóó€but€asked€the€court€toÏignore€this€because€the€state€offered€evidence€that€the€non„compliance€benefittedÏthe€defendant.€€Our€supreme€court€"decline[d]€the€state's€invitation€to€eliminate€asÏan€admissibility€requirement€that€the€testing€operator€follow€the€prescribedÏoperational€procedure."€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àà àSo€limited,€the€ruling€in€òòBoboóó€would€not€prevent€the€state€fromÏestablishing€the€more€stringent€foundation€for€admission€of€test€results€as€set€out€inÍTenn.€R.€Evid.€702€and€703:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledgeÏwill€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€theÏevidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witnessÏqualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,Ïtraining,€or€education€may€testify€in€the€form€of€anÏopinion€or€otherwise.ÌÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€Rule€703€provides€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€which€anÏexpert€bases€an€opinion€or€inference€may€be€thoseÏperceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€beforeÏthe€hearing.€€If€of€a€type€reasonably€relied€upon€byÏexperts€in€the€particular€field€in€forming€opinions€orÏinferences€upon€the€subject,€the€facts€or€data€need€notÏbe€admissible€in€evidence.€€The€court€shall€disallowÏtestimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€inference€if€theÏunderlying€facts€or€data€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€703.€€Under€Rule€702,€expert€testimony€may€be€used€to€presentÏscientific€or€technical€information€if€the€evidence€will€"substantially€assist€the€trier€ofÏfact."€€Establishing€the€reliability€of€the€information€is€a€key€in€determining€whetherÏthe€trier€of€fact€will€be€assisted€by€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€866€S.W.2dÏ583,€587€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Reliability€may,€in€turn,€depend€upon€theÏexistence€of€a€"consensus"€of€opinion€in€the€relevant€scientific€community.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€Rule€703€imposes€theÏrequirement€that€the€underlying€facts€or€data€be€trustworthy.€€All€evidence€must€beÏrelevant.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€These€general€requirements€for€the€admission€ofÍscientific€or€technical€evidence€fairly€and€adequately€embrace€the€concernsÏexpressed€in€òòPruittóó€that€breath€test€results€be€"scientifically€acceptable€and€accurateÏfor€the€purpose€for€which€it€is€used,€and€that€the€witness€who€presents€the€testÏresults€is€qualified€to€interpret€them."€€òòPruittóó,€393€S.W.2d€at€751.€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àHaving€determined€the€state€has€the€alternative€of€proceeding€underÏeither€the€òòSensingóó€requirements€or€the€more€onerous€conditions€described€in€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€this€court€nonetheless€holds€that€in€this€case€the€testÏresults€should€not€have€been€allowed€into€proof.€€Officer€Taylor€testified€that€he€hadÏexamined€the€defendant€with€the€Patton€1400€machine.€€He€had€received€trainingÏon€the€machine€in€Owensboro,€Kentucky€at€the€CMI€Plant€but€had€not€received€anyÏtraining€certification€from€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation.€€He€did€notÏbelieve€the€machine€had€ever€been€tested€or€certified€by€the€T.B.I.€€The€officer€didÏnot€know€when€the€machine€had€last€been€calibrated,€saying€only€that€"wheneverÏthe€instrument€breaks€down,€we€take€it€up€to€Owensboro.€€And€before€it's€sent€backÏit's€calibrated€then."€€The€officer€acknowledged€that€"all€of€the€checking€of€theÏinternal€workings€of€the€machine€are€done€in€Owensboro."€€Officer€Taylor€had€noÏidea€when€the€machine€was€last€sent€back€to€Owensboro.€€ÌÔ% € ÔÌà àà àObviously,€this€testimony€does€not€meet€the€prerequisites€forÍadmission€established€in€òòSensingóó.€€Officer€Taylor€acknowledged€that€he€had€notÏbeen€trained€by€the€T.B.I.€and€that€the€machines€had€not€been€certified€or€calibratedÏby€T.B.I.€€There€was€simply€no€proof€that€the€state€had€followed€the€"standards€andÏoperating€procedure€promulgated€by€the€forensic€services€division€of€the€[T.B.I.]."€ÏòòSensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€at€416.€€Requirements€(1),€(2),€and€(3)€under€òòSensingóó€wereÏnot€met.€€At€trial€and€on€appeal,€the€state€made€no€effort€to€proceed€under€the€moreÏrigorous€provision€found€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€Because€there€wasÏan€inadequate€foundation,€the€trial€court€committed€error€by€admitting€the€testÏresults.ÌÌÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant's€second€challenge€to€the€admission€of€the€breath€testÏis€that€the€machine€was€not€regularly€calibrated.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€motion€inÏlimine,€the€officer€testified€that€the€machine€was€not€calibrated€until€it€"breaksÏdown."€The€machine€was€then€sent€to€Owensboro,€Kentucky,€for€calibration€andÏrepair.€€Officer€Taylor€did€not€know€when€the€machine€was€last€calibrated,€yetÏinsisted€that€"if€there's€anything€wrong€with€the€instrument€itself,€it€will€not€allow€youÏto€give€a€person€a€test.€...€€It€[the€machine]€just€aborts€the€test."€€ÌÌà àà àBased€upon€this,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€evidence€of€calibration€wasÍnot€necessary€because€the€machine€shuts€down€automatically€when€notÏfunctioning€properly.€€€Standing€alone,€that€would€not€have€been€enough.€€BeforeÏthe€test€results€were€admitted€at€trial,€however,€Officer€Taylor€testified€that€aÏsimulated€test,€referred€to€as€a€"wet€bath€test,"€is€done€on€the€machine€each€day.€ÏHe€referred€to€this€as€a€routine,€"simulated€test."€€The€purpose€was€"to€make€sureÏthat€it€is€working€properly."€€Thus,€in€our€view,€the€trial€testimony€met€the€"testedÏregularly"€portion€of€òòSensingóó€standard€three.€€A€"wet€bath€test"€each€day€in€order€toÏensure€the€machine€is€functioning€properly€qualifies€the€machine€as€having€beenÏ"tested€regularly€for€accuracy."€€òòSeeóó€òòSensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€at€416.€ÌÌÓ  ÓIII€€ÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant's€third€complaint€is€that€Officer€Taylor€did€not€complyÏwith€the€twenty€minute€observation€requirement.€€The€fourth€òòSensingóó€requirement€isÏthat€"the€motorist€was€observed€for€the€requisite€20€minutes€prior€to€the€test,€andÏduring€the€period,€he€did€not€have€foreign€matter€in€his€mouth,€did€not€consume€anyÏalcoholic€beverage,€smoke,€or€regurgitate."€€€€òòSensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€at€416.ÌÌà àà àDefense€counsel€asked€how€the€officer€met€the€twenty„minute€waitingÏperiod€requirement:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓI€take€the€time„„from€the€time€I€have€contact€with€him,Ïthat's€the€time€of€the€stop,€time€to€get€him€out€of€the€car,Ítime€that€he€takes€to€take€the€field€sobriety€test,€the€timeÏthat€I€put€him€back€into€the€car.€€And,€generally,€I'm€downÏto€the€part€of€the€report€where€it's€time€to€take€the€breathÏtest.€€That€is€the€period€of€20€minutes.€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓ€à àà àThe€officer€estimated€that€it€took€the€defendant€fifteen€minutes€to€takeÏthe€field€sobriety€tests.€€He€believed€the€defendant€was€in€the€police€car€for€"10€toÏ13€more€€minutes."€€As€he€was€filling€out€paperwork,€Officer€Taylor€"had€[his]Ïrearview€mirror€facing€[the€defendant]."€€Officer€Taylor€insisted,€"I€could€see€himÏback€there,€and€we€were€talking€then.€€So,€if€you're€asking€me€if€I€lost€contact€of€him,Ïno."€€Defense€counsel€asked,€"Is€it€fair€to€say€then€that€your€eyes€could€not€haveÏbeen€on€[the€defendant]€the€whole€time€because€part€of€the€time€you€were€lookingÏdown€at€the€paper?€€And€part€of€the€time€you'd€glance€up€and€look€in€the€mirror?"€ÏThe€officer€responded,€"Yes,€sir."€€When€trial€counsel€asked€whether€any€of€the€fieldÏsobriety€tests€required€the€defendant€to€walk€away€from€the€officer,€the€trial€courtÏinterrupted€the€examination:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓI€believe€I've€heard€enough€now.€€We're€getting€just€aÏlittle€bit€[too]€technical,€maybe€a€little€picky.€€I€find€that€theÏpurpose€of€20€minutes€[has]€been€fulfilled.€€It€doesn'tÏmean€that€it€has€to€be€eyeball€to€eyeball€as€long€as€theÏsubject€is€within€observation.€€And€the€purpose€of€that,€ofÏcourse,€had€been€enumerated€in€your€opinion€here.€€ItÏdoesn't€say€that€an€observation€cannot€be€in€a€mirror,Ïcannot€be€even€from€behind€if€he€knows€nothing€is€beingÏplaced€in€the€mouth€or€regurgitated€there€from.€€So€theÏcomplete€purpose€of€this€20„minute€wait€has€beenÏfulfilled.€€And€I€find€no€problem€so€far€with€the€testimony.ÌÌÓÓÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÌ€€€€à àà àIn€òòState€v.€McCaslinóó,€894€S.W.2d€310€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€theÏtesting€officer€was€unable€to€testify€that€he€had€watched€the€defendant€for€theÏrequisite€twenty€minutes;€in€consequence,€the€test€results€were€found€inadmissible.€ÏMcCaslin€had€been€placed€in€the€patrol€car€at€2:20€a.m.,€arrived€at€the€policeÏstation€at€2:30€a.m.,€and€was€administered€the€test€at€2:46€a.m.€€òòId.óó€at€311.€€TheÏ"undisputed€period€of€observation"€was€sixteen€minutes.€€òòId.óó€€Our€court€held€that€theÏtime€the€defendant€was€in€the€patrol€car€could€not€be€considered€because€theÏofficer€could€not€"say€with€certainty€that€the€defendant€did€not€regurgitate€while€outÏof€hisÌview€in€the€backseat€of€the€patrol€car€from€2:20€a.m.€until€they€arrived€at€the€station."€ÏòòId.óó€at€311„12.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòMcCaslinóó,€the€state€had€argued€that€the€test€results€shouldÏnevertheless€have€been€admitted€because€the€defendant€did€not€present€anyÏevidence€that€he€had€in€fact€regurgitated.€€This€court€responded€to€that€argument€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€State's€position€is€misplaced€as€it€is€the€State'sÏburden,€not€the€defendant's,€to€present€testimonyÏthrough€the€testing€officer€that€the€òòSensingóó€pre„testÏrequirements€were€met.€€Therefore,€a€claim€that€theÏdefendant€either€presented€or€failed€to€present€testimonyÏof€regurgitation€is€irrelevant€in€this€case.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€312.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àAnother€case€where€our€court€addressed€the€twenty„minuteÏobservation€requirement€is€òòState€v.€Harold€E.€Fieldsóó,€No.€01C01„9412„CC„00438,Ïslip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Apr.€12,€1996).€€In€òòFieldsóó,€the€testingÏofficer€remained€in€the€same€room€with€the€defendant€during€the€twenty„minuteÏperiod.€€The€deputy€acknowledged€that€he€did€not€"maintain€a€continuous€watch€...Ïduring€those€twenty€minutes."€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€2.€€"Although€in€the€same€room€with€theÏ[defendant],€the€deputy€filled€out€paper€work€and€entered€data€on€a€keyboard€intoÏthe€Intoximeter€3000€during€the€observation€period."€€òòId.óó€€The€deputy€testified€thatÏ"although€he€did€not€turn€his€back€to€the€[defendant]€during€the€observation€period,Ïhe€also€did€not€keep€his€eyes€trained€on€the€[defendant]€during€the€entire€period."€ÏòòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€5.€€In€òòFieldsóó,€the€trial€court€had€found€the€twenty€minute€rule€had€notÏbeen€satisfied;€the€state€appealed€to€our€court€œand›€we€affirmed€the€ruling€of€the€trialÏcourt;€a€panel€of€this€court€ruled€that€"[w]here€an€officer€can€testify€that€he€or€sheÏcontinuously€observed€the€test€subject,€with€his€or€her€eyes,€for€the€entire€twenty„minute€observational€period,€the€State€will€...€be€able€to€meet€this€requirement€...."€ÏòòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€5.€€The€court€held,€"[t]hat€an€officer€remained€in€the€room€with€theÏdefendant€for€twenty€minutes€prior€to€testing€will€not€satisfy€the€requirements€ofÏòòSensingóó.€€òòSensingóó€requires€the€State€to€establish€that€during€those€twenty€minutesÍnothing€occurred€which€would€compromise€the€validity€of€the€breath€alcohol€test."€ÏòòId.óó€€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€must€establish€compliance€with€òòSensingóó€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Jerry€Wayne€Edisonóó,€No.€03C01„9605„CC„00199,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€June€18,€1997),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€filedóó,€Aug.€18,€1997.€€Our€court's€review€of€the€trial€court's€ruling€is€whetherÏthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€10.€€Even€with€this€limited€scopeÏof€review,€we€must€determine€the€trial€court€erred€by€concluding€the€òòSensingóóÏtwenty„minute€requirement€had€been€satisfied.€€The€officer€testified€that€he€had€theÏdefendant€under€observation€while€he€administered€the€three€field€sobriety€tests€forÏabout€fifteen€minutes.€€Then€the€officer€testified€that€he€placed€the€defendant€in€theÏbackseat€of€the€patrol€car€and€observed€the€defendant€through€the€rearview€mirrorÏwhile€he€filled€out€paperwork.€€The€officer€conceded€that€he€could€not€observe€theÏdefendant€while€writing€on€the€arrest€report.€€The€òòFieldsóó€opinion€requires€that€theÏofficer€"continuously€observe[]€the€test€subject,€with€his€or€her€eyes,€for€the€entireÏtwenty„minute€observational€period."€€òòFieldsóó,€slip€op.€at€5.€ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àà àWe€must€now€determine€whether€the€erroneous€admission€of€theÍbreath€test€was€harmless€error.€€Here,€the€officer€testified€he€saw€the€defendant€doÏa€"rolling€stop"€at€a€stop€sign.€€Then,€the€defendant€performed€poorly€on€two€fieldÏtests.€€The€defendant€admitted€to€the€police€officer€that€he€had€consumed€"fiveÏSamuel€Adams"€over€a€period€of€hours€and€the€officer€detected€the€odor€of€alcohol.€€ÏThis€evidence€is€to€be€weighed€against€the€defendant's€testimony€that€he€thoughtÏhe€performed€well€on€the€field€sobriety€tests€and€that€he€was€surprised€when€theÏofficer€asked€him€to€take€a€breath€test.€€Also,€the€defendant€presented€the€testimonyÏof€two€different€friends€who€stated€the€defendant€appeared€sober€at€various€pointsÏand€acted€normally€before€the€arrest.€€Yet,€the€defendant€admitted€at€trial€that€heÏhad€consumed€four€beers€over€the€course€of€several€hours€during€the€evening.€€€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòMcCaslinóó,€our€court€ruled€that€the€erroneous€admission€of€theÏbreath€test€was€reversible€error:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓAs€in€any€case€it€is€impossible€to€determine€the€weight,€ifÏany,€given€by€a€jury€to€any€item€of€evidence.€€However,Ïwhen€the€only€scientific€evidence€presented€at€trial€wasÏadmitted€in€error€we€cannot€say€that€the€effect€wasÏharmless.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòMcCaslinóó,€894€S.W.2d€at€312.€€In€òòMcCaslinóó,€the€remaining€evidence,€besides€theÏbreath€test,€was€that€the€arresting€officer€observed€the€defendant's€car€weaving€onÏthe€road,€that€the€defendant€was€unsteady€and€smelled€of€alcohol,€and€videoÏrecordings€of€the€defendant€performing€field€sobriety€tests.€€òòId.óó€at€311„12.€€TheÍvideos€were€"inconclusive[]"€in€establishing€the€defendant's€guilt.€€òòId.óó€at€312.€€Thus,€Ïthe€court€concluded€admission€of€the€test€results€was€reversible€error.€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€here€is€comparable€to€that€presented€in€òòMcCaslinóó.€ÏBecause€the€proof,€other€than€the€breath€tests€results,€was€fairly€balanced,€we€mustÏconclude€that€a€jury€should€determine€the€question.€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€has€argued€that€without€the€breath€test,€theÏevidence€is€altogether€insufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction.€€We€disagree.€€Our€codeÏprovides€"[i]t€is€unlawful€for€any€person€...€to€drive€...€any€automobile€...€while€underÏthe€influence€of€any€intoxicant€...."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401.€€Even€without€theÏbreath€test,€there€is€persuasive€evidence€that€the€defendant€drove€his€vehicle€in€aÏmanner€impaired€by€his€use€of€alcohol.€€An€acquittal€by€this€court€under€thoseÏcircumstances€would€not€be€warranted.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€conviction€is€reversed€and€remanded€forÏa€new€trial.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€JudgeÌ