ÿWPC¦ ÿhµj9,:h*ö8RÖŤ@#ü©ëòï꟪W ¯4VRüÜV×Ë¢ÇAƒÓuwýÛ`Ó|È_Ææ%è"gˆ©Ünr!’ë³Ë(úæºFž¢åûЉãþ±€­~'Htaô»¥‰úP×{Š×ïön„rÛ9ÌP-§îÏÿ2eƒ—ußáÚ Ÿ6NOT8ý]†²Iv6JÒ}˜%¤ÿËèq.‰?´~ÀµQp© ”Éû±k·ÞÜGß©ô>ÿQo¦ [nÎyn}Jâæ>ÌgMë=I’„ËT¿`ðÅÓ{R*S|1 ,2@¨ˆPïín¶é †i‹hQ48ŸíD!²}¶‚°¥Óšû5g"‹ËÌR±C/l±ß²a޼`k;‹>#r2‹·žûÄ}‹VÛådíãD"d[@ÁE‰¬NQ·ž=­ÎÞZtU¬š fËõ…~)| W+ã ʼ½‚¡K.ëh“ž5k÷Ã@ùz¸Ó:% »)¾#òßÌ_^&a•5&jEœ)µùs³`ÙÏ ÐÜf+XçX€ îߤ„­X)‡€Ù)Wœö·Ô‘inŠ5•§ZÙ@]nÂe I2ÝĪ!ä[!W ˆ!?@„{© ì}$Nd#!x %™Ÿ 0(§U:Ïw 4 ! 0 U:8 0ˆr 0Dú ú > > ÷S J mLLLLLLLLNc^ eeee Bqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq 0DŽ D5ÒÒÒÒÒ AQÆX 0D 0Db˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0 X ($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial RegulartpO'¦B883|x,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(8(2³€$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒ ³€$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡ ô c òX XÔFor€example,€the€Stateððs€position€could€be€interpreted€as€requiring€a€defendant€to€file€a€pretrialÐ ° Ðmotion€to€suppress€fingerprint€evidence,€ballistics€evidence,€and€other€matters,€even€though€the€burden€ofÐ –æ Ðestablishing€the€foundation,€relevance,€qualifications,€and€other€requirements€for€admissibility€rests€withÐ T¤ Ðthe€prosecution.€€Moreover,€where€the€prosecution€has€failed€to€establish€a€foundation€for€the€admission€ofÐ b Ðevidence,€an€objection€at€trial€has€traditionally€been€deemed€sufficient€to€preserve€the€issue.€Ô#† XÚ`X ò ô cp#Ô íÝ ƒb¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ uX XÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X`ßX uÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€20,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAYÔó óÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ7§‘'L  d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý)ÿÿ!dxdxabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒX°ÒÒ½°ÒÔ€X`ßXX XÔÑ8€`ßXdædÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÓ=€`ßXÐXdÐd=ÓÑ  Ñßx€`[B2.jzXìþ`  `€€@ÿEžœ` 8ttxPÖÔ( È xßÔ_Ôà@''àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌà@YY)àAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌÌÌà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % àò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óÐ  d ÐÌà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % àò òòòFiled:€December€20,€1999óóÐ æ 6 Ðó óÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à  àà u àà Í à)Ð žî  Ðà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à)Ìà  àAppellee,à Å àà  àà u àà Í à)Ð jº  Ðà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à)à % àCoffee€CountyÐ P   ÐVs.à  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à)à@/àˆÐ 6†  Ðà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à)à % àHon.€Gerald€L.€Ewell,€Sr.,€JudgeÐ l ÐWILLARD€C.€COOK,€SR.,à  àà u àà Í à)Ð R Ðà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à)à % àNo.€M1995„00011„SC„R11„CDÐ è8 Ðà  àAppellant.à Å àà  àà u àà Í à)Ð Î ÐÌÌÌò òòòÌÌFor€the€Appellantóó:à Å àòòà  àà u àà Í àà % àFor€the€Appelleeóó:òòà - àà … àà Ý" àà 5% àÐ >Ž Ðà  àÌó óóóRobert€S.€Petersòòò òà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % àó óóóJohn€Knox€Walkupà - àà … àà Ý" àÐ f ÐSWAFFORD,€PETERS€&€PRIESTà Í àà % àAttorney€General€and€Reporterà Ý" àÐ üL ÐWinchester,€TennesseeÌà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % àMichael€E.€MooreÌà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % àPeter€M.€CoughlanÌà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % àNashville,€Tennesseeòòò òÐ F$–# ÐÌó óÓÓÓ  ÓÌÌÌà@  )àÔ€ Y!XX`ßÔò òóóO€P€I€N€I€O€Nòòó óˆÐ |+Ì&+ ÐÌÔ€X`ßX! YÔóóAFFIRMEDà0 m àà0Å m €%m €%àà0Å €%Å €%àà0u€%€%àà0Íu€%u€%àà0%Í€%Í€%àà0}%€%%€%àà0Õ}€%}€%àAnderson,€C.J.òòÐ`0°+/Õ€%Õ€% ÐÌÌÌÌÌÐ (;x6;£ Ðò òóóó óÓ  Óà  àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whether€dentures€constitute€ð ðforeign€matterððÐ ° Ðrequiring€invalidation€of€a€breath„alcohol€test€result€and€to€consider€whether€theÐ à Ðadmission€of€a€breath„alcohol€test€result€must€be€challenged€by€a€pretrial€motion€underÐ pÀ ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3)€or€whether€an€objection€may€be€made€at€trial.€€Ð P   ÐÌà  àAfter€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€presence€of€denturesÐ `  Ðdid€not€preclude€admission€of€the€breath„alcohol€test€result.€€The€defendant€wasÐ ð@  Ðthereafter€convicted€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€conviction,€holding€that€the€record€wasÐ à Ðinsufficient€to€explain€what€effect,€if€any,€the€presence€of€dentures€had€on€the€test€resultsÐ pÀ Ðand€that€the€officer€administering€the€test€in€this€case€was€justified€in€relying€on€theÐ P  Ðdefendantððs€response€that€he€had€no€foreign€matter€in€his€mouth.€€A€majority€of€the€courtÐ 0€ Ðfurther€stated€that€a€defendant€is€not€required€to€challenge€the€admissibility€of€breath„Ð ` Ðalcohol€test€results€prior€to€trial.Ð ð@ ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€the€record€and€applicable€authority,€we€agree€with€the€lowerÐ °"  Ðcourts€that€the€defendantððs€dentures€were€not€shown€to€have€affected€the€breath„alcoholÐ $à" Ðtest€result€in€this€case.€€We€also€hold€that€because€the€burden€of€establishing€aÐ p&À!$ Ðfoundation€for€the€admissibility€of€a€breath„alcohol€test€lies€with€the€prosecution,€aÐ P( #& Ðdefendant€may€challenge€its€admissibility€either€before€or€during€the€trial.€€€€ò òòòó óà Ý" àóóÐ 0*€%( ÐÌà@BB*àò òòòBACKGROUNDó óóóˆÐ ð-@), Ðà  àThe€defendant,€Willard€C.€Cook,€Sr.,€was€stopped€in€the€early€morning€hours€ofÐ Ð/ +. ÐJuly€11,€1993,€by€a€Tennessee€Highway€Patrolman.€€Cookððs€car€had€been€drifting€fromÐ °1-0 Ðlane€to€lane€and€was€about€to€make€an€improper€turn€onto€a€one„way€street.€€Cook€hadÐ 3à.2 Ðan€odor€of€alcohol€on€his€breath€and€bloodshot€eyes.€€Cook€told€the€officer€he€had€beenÐ p5À04 Ðdrinking,€and€he€failed€two€field€sobriety€tests.€€Ð P7 26 ÐÐ 09€48 Ðà  àCook€was€arrested€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€and€taken€toÐ ° Ðthe€Coffee€County€Jail.€€He€agreed€to€take€a€breathalyzer€test€and€signed€the€consentÐ à Ðform.€€Coffee€County€Jailer€Charles€Jones€administered€the€test,€which€determined€thatÐ pÀ ÐCookððs€blood€alcohol€content€was€.13%.Ð P   ÐÌà  àPrior€to€Jonesðð€testimony€at€trial,€defense€counsel€objected€to€the€admission€of€theÐ `  Ðresults€of€the€breath„alcohol€test.€€The€trial€court€said€that€the€objection€should€haveÐ ð@  Ðbeen€made€prior€to€trial€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3),€but€nonetheless€held€aÐ Ð  Ðjury„out€hearing.€€Jones€testified€in€the€hearing€that€he€had€asked€whether€Cook€had€anyÐ ° Ðforeign€matter€in€his€mouth€prior€to€administering€the€test,€and€Cook€replied€that€he€ð ðhadÐ à Ðnothing.ðð€€Jones€admitted€that€he€was€unaware€that€Cook€was€wearing€dentures€with€aÐ pÀ Ðcotton€pad€and€that€had€he€known,€he€would€have€had€Cook€remove€them€before€takingÐ P  Ðthe€test.€€Jones€testified,€however,€that€he€had€never€been€instructed€that€dentures€affectÐ 0€ Ða€test.Ð ` ÐÌà  àThe€trial€judge€ruled€that€the€presence€of€dentures€went€to€the€weight€of€the€testÐ Ð  Ðresults€and€not€to€their€admissibility.€€After€the€trial€resumed€and€in€the€juryððs€presence,Ð °"  ÐJones€reiterated€that€he€did€not€know€that€Cook€had€been€wearing€dentures.€€Had€heÐ $à" Ðknown,€Jones€would€have€asked€Cook€to€remove€the€dentures€because€foreign€matterÐ p&À!$ Ðcan€affect€a€test€result.€€Jones€also€testified,€however,€that€the€breathalyzer€used,€theÐ P( #& ÐIntoximeter€3000,€will€abort€a€test€if€it€reads€alcohol€from€a€mouth€instead€of€from€theÐ 0*€%( Ðdeep€lung€area,€and€will€dispense€a€print„out€stating€ð ðmouth€alcohol.ðð€€Jones€testified€thatÐ ,`'* Ðthe€machine€did€not€do€so€in€this€case.€€The€jury€convicted€Cook€of€driving€under€theÐ ð-@), Ðinfluence.Ð Ð/ +. ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€conviction.€€The€court€determined€thatÐ 3à.2 Ðthere€was€no€evidence€in€the€record€showing€that€the€presence€of€dentures€affected€theÐ p5À04 Ðtest€results€in€this€case.€€Although€the€court€observed€that€other€jurisdictions€do€notÐ P7 26 Ðconsider€dentures€to€be€foreign€matter€that€would€bar€admission€of€test€results,€it€did€notÐ 09€48 Ðdecide€the€issue.€€Finally,€a€majority€of€the€court€ruled€that€a€defendant€is€not€required€toÐ ° Ðfile€a€pretrial€motion€to€challenge€the€admissibility€of€breath€alcohol€test€results.Ð à ÐÌà  àWe€granted€review€to€address€these€issues.Ð P   ÐÌà@$$+àò òòòANALYSISóóˆÐ `  Ðà  àó óWe€begin€our€analysis€by€reviewing€the€prerequisites€that€must€be€established€asÐ ð@  Ða€foundation€for€the€admission€of€breath„alcohol€test€results.€€First,€the€testing€operatorÐ Ð  Ðmust€testify€that€the€test€used€followed€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€standards.€Ð ° ÐSecond,€the€operator€must€be€certified€in€accordance€with€those€standards.€€Third,€theÐ à Ðmachine€must€be€certified,€tested€regularly€for€accuracy,€and€working€properly.€€Fourth,Ð pÀ Ðthe€motorist€must€be€personally€observed€for€the€requisite€twenty€minutes€before€takingÐ P  Ðthe€test,€during€which€time€the€defendant€did€not€have€foreign€matter€in€his€mouth,Ð 0€ Ðconsume€alcohol,€smoke,€or€regurgitate.€€Fifth,€the€operator€must€follow€the€instrumentððsÐ ` Ðprescribed€operational€procedure.€€Lastly,€the€operator€must€identify€the€test€resultsÐ ð@ Ðoffered€in€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412,€416€(Tenn.€1992).€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€fourth€òòSensingóó€requirement„„that€the€prosecution€establish€that€a€defendantððsÐ $à" Ðmouth€was€free€from€foreign€matter€for€twenty€minutes€prior€to€the€administration€of€theÐ p&À!$ Ðbreath„alcohol€test„„òòóóensures€that€no€foreign€matter€is€present€in€the€defendantððs€mouthÐ P( #& Ðthat€could€retain€alcohol€and€potentially€influence€the€results€of€the€test.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóóÐ 0*€%( ÐòòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ôóó,€630€N.E.2d€156,€158€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1994)€(stating€that€importantÐ ,`'* Ðconsiderations€are€whether€the€defendant€had€any€food€or€drink,€smoked€a€cigarette,€orÐ ð-@), Ðput€anything€in€his€mouth€that€would€have€tainted€the€results);€òòFarr€v.€Director€ofÐ Ð/ +. ÐRevenueóó,€914€S.W.2d€38,€40€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1996)€(recognizing€ð ðoral€intakeðð€could€taintÐ °1-0 Ðthe€result€or€prevent€the€operation€of€a€breath„alcohol€test).€€We€did€not€in€òòSensingóóÐ 3à.2 Ðattempt€to€delineate€all€possible€items€that€may€constitute€foreign€matter.Ð p5À04 Ðâ âÐ P7 26 Ðà  àWe€therefore€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€we€need€notÐ ° Ðâ âdetermine€whether€dentures,€as€a€matter€of€law,€constitute€foreign€matter€that€affect€aÐ à Ðbreath„alcohol€test€and€render€the€result€inadmissible.€€The€evidence€in€the€recordÐ pÀ Ðestablishes€that€Cook€was€observed€for€the€requisite€period€of€time€in€accordance€withÐ P   ÐòòSensingóó,€and€nothing€unusual€was€detected.€€Cook€was€asked€if€he€had€any€foreignÐ 0 € Ðmatter€and€replied€that€he€did€not.€€Cook€did€not€state€or€indicate€that€he€was€wearingÐ `  Ðdentures.€€Although€the€administering€officer€testified€he€would€have€had€Cook€removeÐ ð@  Ðthe€dentures,€the€officer€could€not€opine€as€to€the€effect€of€the€dentures,€if€any,€on€theÐ Ð  Ðresults€of€the€test.€€The€officer€further€testified,€however,€that€the€intoximeter€used€toÐ ° Ðconduct€the€test€would€have€shut€down€had€it€detected€the€presence€of€mouth€alcoholÐ à Ðand€would€also€have€issued€a€print„out€stating€ð ðmouth€alcohol.ðð€€It€did€neither€when€itÐ pÀ Ðwas€administered€to€Cook.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€evidence€does€notÐ P  Ðpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€admit€the€results€of€the€breath„alcoholÐ 0€ Ðtest€in€this€case.€Ð ` ЀÌò òó óà@aa(àò òòòPretrial€Motionóóó óˆÐ Ð  Ðà  àWe€now€turn€to€the€issue€of€whether€a€defendant€must€challenge€the€admissibilityÐ °"  Ðof€breath„alcohol€test€results€prior€to€trial.€€In€general,€a€ð ðmotion€to€suppress€evidenceððÐ $à" Ðmust€be€filed€prior€to€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3).€€The€purpose€of€the€rule€Ð p&À!$ ÐÓÓà8  àis€not€only€to€avoid€the€unnecessary€interruption€and€inefficiency€inÐ P( #& Ðconducting€jury€trials€caused€by€needlessly€removing€the€jury€from€theÐ @)$' Ðcourtroom€for€protracted€suppression€hearings,€but€also€to€ensure€the€rightÐ 0*€%( Ðof€the€state€to€an€appeal€of€an€adverse€ruling€by€the€trial€judge€withoutÐ  +p&) Ðplacing€the€defendant€twice€in€jeopardy.Ð,`'* (# (# ÐÌòòÓÓState€v.€Randolphóó,€692€S.W.2d€37,€40€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€Ð ð-@), ÐÌà  àNeither€the€terms€of€Rule€12(b)(3)€nor€Tennessee€case€law€specifies€whatÐ °1-0 Ðevidence€must€be€challenged€by€means€of€a€pretrial€ð ðmotion€to€suppress.ðð€€òòóóHowever,€theÐ 3à.2 Ðcomments€to€Rule€12(b)(3)€state€that€the€rule€conforms€to€its€federal€counterpart.€€ThereÐ p5À04 Ðis€a€distinction€between€filing€a€ð ðmotion€to€suppress€evidenceðð€prior€to€trial€on€the€basisÐ P7 26 Ðthat€evidence€was€obtained€illegally,€and€objecting€during€trial€where€the€prosecution€hasÐ 09€48 Ðfailed€to€establish€a€sufficient€foundation€for€the€admission€of€evidence.€€The€decision€inÐ ° ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔBarlettaÔ_Ôóó,€644€F.2d€50€(1st€Cir.€1981)€construes€the€federal€counterpartÐ à Ðto€Tennesseeððs€rule.€€The€court€explains:€€€Ð pÀ ÐÓÓà8  àAt€least€as€used€in€12(b),€ð ðsuppressðð€has€a€rather€definite€and€limitedÐ P   Ðmeaning,€as€explained€by€the€Advisory€Committee€notes€accompanyingÐ @  Ðthe€Rule.€€Motions€to€suppress€are€described€as€ð ðobjections€to€evidence€onÐ 0 € Ðthe€ground€that€it€was€illegally€obtainedðð,€including€ð ðevidence€obtained€as€aÐ  p  Ðresult€of€an€illegal€searchðð€and€ð ðother€forms€of€illegality€such€as€the€use€ofÐ `  Ðunconstitutional€means€to€obtain€a€confession.ðð€€Put€generally,€then,Ð P  Ðsuppression€motions€concern€the€ð ðapplication€of€the€exclusionary€rule€ofÐ ð@  Ðevidenceðð,€or€matters€of€ð ðððpolice€conduct€not€immediately€relevant€to€theÐ à0  Ðquestion€of€guiltðððð€.€.€.€.òòóó€ÐÐ  (# (# ÐÌòòÓÓId.óó€at€54€(citations€omitted);€òòseealsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Gomez„Ô_ÔBenabeÔ_Ôóó,€985€F.2d€607€(1stÐ ° ÐCir.€1993)€(motion€to€suppress€must€be€made€prior€to€trial;€other€motions€to€excludeÐ à Ðevidence€may€be€made€during€the€trial).€€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWe€also€think€that€requiring€a€pretrial€motion€is€inconsistent€with€establishedÐ 0€ ÐTennessee€case€law.€€In€òòSensingóó€we€said€that€the€prosecution€must€meet€sixÐ ` Ðrequirements€to€establish€a€foundation€for€the€admissibility€of€breath€test€results:€first,€theÐ ð@ Ðtesting€operator€must€testify€that€the€test€used€followed€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÐ Ð  ÐInvestigation€standards;€second,€the€operator€must€be€certified€in€accordance€with€thoseÐ °"  Ðstandards;€third,€the€machine€must€be€certified,€tested€regularly€for€accuracy,€andÐ $à" Ðworking€properly;€fourth,€the€motorist€must€be€personally€observed€for€the€requisiteÐ p&À!$ Ðminutes€before€taking€the€test;€fifth,€the€operator€must€follow€the€instrumentððs€prescribedÐ P( #& Ðoperational€procedure;€and€sixth,€the€operator€must€identify€the€test€results€offered€inÐ 0*€%( Ðevidence.€€òòId.óó€at€416.€€The€prosecutionððs€inability€to€meet€one€of€these€requirementsÐ ,`'* Ðmeans€it€has€failed€to€establish€a€foundation€for€the€admission€of€the€breath€test€results.€Ð ð-@), ÐIt€does€not€mean€that€the€evidence€was€òòillegallyóó€obtained€by€the€State.€€Moreover,Ð Ð/ +. Ðnowhere€in€òòSensingóó€did€we€state€that€a€defendant€must€challenge€these€requirementsÐ °1-0 Ðprior€to€trial€under€Rule€12(b)(3).€€Indeed,€the€defendant€in€òòSensingóó€preserved€the€issueÐ 3à.2 Ðby€objecting€at€trial.Ð p5À04 Ðâ âÐ P7 26 Ðà  àThe€Stateððs€arguments€for€requiring€a€pretrial€motion€in€all€cases€areÐ ° Ðâ âunconvincing.€€First,€a€pretrial€hearing€is€not€required€simply€because€it€may€reduceÐ à Ðdisruption€or€delay€of€the€trial.€€Although€pretrial€procedures€certainly€have€thatÐ pÀ Ðadvantage,€the€rules€of€evidence€provide€for€other€means€by€which€to€conduct€a€hearingÐ P   Ðð ðout€of€the€hearing€of€the€jury.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€104(c).€€In€fact,€trial€courts€have€greatÐ 0 € Ðdiscretion€in€implementing€a€procedure€by€which€to€rule€on€evidentiary€matters€outsideÐ `  Ðthe€juryððs€hearing.€€òòE.g.óó,€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€104.3,€atÐ ð@  Ð27„28€(3d€ed.€1995).€€The€trial€court€did€so€in€the€present€case.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àSecond,€the€prosecution€must€establish€the€òòSensingóó€requirements€regardless€ofÐ à Ðwhether€the€issue€is€raised€prior€to€trial€or€whether€an€objection€is€made€at€trial.€€CohenÐ pÀ Ðet€al.òòóó,€ðð€401.24,€at€131€(ð ðCompliance€with€òòState€v.€Sensingóó€is€a€ððcondition€precedentðð€toÐ P  Ðthe€admissibility€of€the€breath€test.ðð)€(footnotes€omitted).€€Accordingly,€the€StateððsÐ 0€ Ðcomment€that€the€defense€counsel€may€engage€in€ð ðsandbaggingðð€by€intentionally€optingÐ ` Ðnot€to€raise€the€matter€prior€to€trial€is€dubious.€€Moreover,€this€Court€should€not€requireÐ ð@ Ðthe€defense€to€file€a€pretrial€motion€simply€to€advise€the€prosecution€that€it€may€have€aÐ Ð  Ðdefect€in€its€proof€or€some€problem€in€establishing€the€appropriate€evidentiaryÐ °"  Ðfoundation.€€The€responsibility€for€establishing€the€òòSensingóó€requirements€rests€only€withÐ $à" Ðthe€prosecution,€not€the€defense.Ð p&À!$ ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Stateððs€concern€for€its€right€to€appeal€an€adverse€ruling€is€misplacedÐ 0*€%( Ðfor€two€reasons.€€First,€as€we€observed€in€òòSensingóó:Ð ,`'* ÐÓÓà8  à[Ô_ÔI]tÔ_Ô€is€a€rare€case€in€which€the€òòonlyóó€evidence€introduced€to€establish€that€aÐ ð-@), Ðsuspected€offender€is€under€the€influence€is€either€a€breath€or€a€blood€test.€Ð à.0*- ÐIn€most€cases€there€is€the€testimony€of€the€arresting€officer€and€others€atÐ Ð/ +. Ðthe€scene€concerning€the€Ô_ÔarresteeÔ_Ôððs€driving€pattern€and€their€observationsÐ À0,/ Ðof€the€individual,€including€his€speech,€breath€and€eyes.€€Often€a€fieldÐ °1-0 Ðsobriety€test€has€been€administered.€€Scientific€tests€are€corroborativeÐ  2ð-1 Ðevidence€and€may€serve€to€exonerate€as€well€as€to€convict€an€accused€in€aÐ 3à.2 Ðclose€case.Ѐ4Ð/3 (# (# ÐÌòòId.óó€at€416„17€(emphasis€in€original).€€Second,€ÓÓthe€argument€for€preserving€a€possibleÐ `6°15 Ðappeal€by€the€State€would€arguably€apply€to€any€evidentiary€ruling€made€by€the€trialÐ @837 Ðcourt€that€is€adverse€to€the€prosecution.€€If€the€position€is€carried€to€its€logical€conclusion,Ð  :p59 Ðthen€a€defendant€would€be€required€to€seek€pretrial€suppression€of€each€component€ofÐ ° Ðthe€prosecutionððs€evidence„„photographs,€documents,€physical€evidence,€proposedÐ à Ðexpert€testimony„„to€avoid€the€penalty€of€waiver€and€to€preserve€a€possible€appeal€byÐ pÀ Ðthe€State€in€the€event€the€evidence€is€excluded.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€have€never€given€such€a€broadÐ P   Ðconstruction€to€Rule€12(b)(3).€€€€Ð 0 € ÐÌà@~~*àò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óˆÐ ð@  Ðà  à€We€conclude€that€the€dentures€worn€by€Cook€were€not€shown€to€have€affectedÐ Ð  Ðthe€result€of€the€breath„alcohol€test€and€that€the€evidence€therefore€does€notÐ ° Ðpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€We€further€hold€that€a€defendant€is€notÐ à Ðrequired€to€challenge€a€breath„alcohol€test€by€filing€a€pretrial€motion€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.Ð pÀ ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€12(b)(3),€but€rather,€may€make€a€timely€objection€at€trial€if€the€prosecution€hasÐ P  Ðfailed€to€establish€the€òòSensingóó€requirements.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÐ 0€ ÐCriminal€Appeals€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€the€appellant,€Willard€C.Ð ` ÐCook,€Sr.Ð ð@ ÐÌÓÓà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % à_______________________________Ð °"  Ðà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % àRiley€Anderson,€Chief€JusticeÐ  #ð! ÐÌò òConcur:Ð €%Ð # ÐÌó óDrowota,€Birch,€and€Holder,€JJ.Ð `'°"% ÐÌBarker,€J.,€Not€Participating