certificate analysis in Missouri

1999See Tate v. Director of Revenue, 982 S.W.2d 724, 728 (Mo.App.

1998Plank lists multiple grounds upon which he contends the certificate of analysis fails to comply with a more recent regulation, 19 CSR 25—30.051(1). 1 These issues were recently addressed by this court in two opinions: Tate v. Director of Revenue, 982 S.W.2d 724 (Mo.App.

1998We allowed the admission of the certificate of analysis produced by the manufacturer of the solution which supported the police officer's affidavit for a limited purpose "to demonstrate that the [Hannibal Police Department] complied with the requirements of 19-CSR 25-30.050(4)." Id. at 481 .

1998We allowed the admission of the certificate of analysis produced by the manufacturer of the solution which supported the police officer’s affidavit for a limited purpose “to demonstrate that the [Hannibal Police Department] complied with the requirements of 19-CSR 25-30.050(4).” Id. at 481 .

1999Driver relies upon two recent eases from this Court: Dent v. Director of Revenue, 977 S.W.2d 281 (Mo.App.E.D.1998) and McDonough v. Director of Revenue, 977 S.W.2d 278 (Mo.App.E.D.1998).

1999Meurer relies upon two recent cases from this Court: Dent v. Director of Revenue, 977 S.W.2d 281 (Mo.App.

2000Selix v. Director of Revenue, 985 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (Mo.App.1999); Meurer v. Director of Revenue, 984 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Mo.App.1999).

1999Meurer v. Director of Revenue, 984 S.W.2d 873, 876-77 (Mo.App.

1999Driver relies upon two recent eases from this Court: Dent v. Director of Revenue, 977 S.W.2d 281 (Mo.App.E.D.1998) and McDonough v. Director of Revenue, 977 S.W.2d 278 (Mo.App.E.D.1998).

1998Dent , at 282; McDonough v. Director of Revenue, 977 S.W.2d 278, 279 (Mo.App.E.D., 1998).

1999See, Rogers v. Director of Revenue, 947 S.W.2d 475, 477-78 (Mo.App.

1999See, Rogers, 947 S.W.2d at 477-78 ; Shine v. Director of Revenue, 807 S.W.2d 160, 163 (Mo.App.

1999In Vilcek v. Director of Revenue, this Court found that under section 19 CSR 25-30.051, the Director could satisfy the required showing by admitting the maintenance report and the certificate of analysis. 1 974 S.W.2d 602 , 605 (Mo.App.E.D.1998).

1999Subsection (4) 19 CSR 25-30.051 provides that maintenance reports completed on or after March 26, 1996 but before September 1, 1997 are valid “if a certificate of analysis was supplied with the simulator solution.” Id.

2006While noting that a certificate of analysis, including the expiration date of the simulator solution, is not required by the regulations, this court nevertheless found that “the expiration date of the solution may be relevant if the contention is that the breath analyzer falsely reported the percentage of blood alcohol in the person’s blood being tested because the effectiveness of the solution expired and the solution can no longer function properly.” Id. at 177 .

2003See Kennedy v. Dir. of Revenue, 73 S.W.3d 85, 86-87 (Mo. *303 App. S.D.2002) (overruled on other grounds by Verdoom, 119 S.W.3d at 546-47 ) (holding that the trial court correctly denied admission of test results when the machine gave a status code reading that the “system won’t zero” after the initial test and, instead of letting a maintenance person know about the malfunction and suspending use of the machine, as required, the officer performed another test with the malfunctioning machine three minutes later); Lasley, 17 S.W.3d at 177 (holding that the trial court correctly denied admission

1998E.D., 1998) and Trumble v. Director of Revenue, No. 73665,-S.W.2d-, 1998 WL 813385 (Mo.App.

1998We recently considered the admissibility of certificates of analysis under 19 CSR 25-30.051 in Tate v. Director of Revenue, 982 S.W.2d 724 (Mo.App.1998) and Trumble v. Director of Revenue, — S.W.2d -, 1998 WL 813385 , No. 73665, slip op.

2000Selix v. Director of Revenue, 985 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (Mo.App.1999); Meurer v. Director of Revenue, 984 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Mo.App.1999).

1999The issues raised by Director and Meurer in this appeal are virtually identical to those raised in a case recently handed down by this Court in Selix v. Director of Revenue, 985 S.W.2d 380 (Mo.App.

1999In his objection to the admittance of exhibit B, Driver contended that evidence of the manufacturer’s certification was required to be attached to the maintenance report for verification of Driver’s BAC under Fronabarger v. Director of Revenue, 950 S.W.2d 258 (Mo.App.

1999In contrast, the regulation in effect at the time of the trial in Fronabarger v. Director of Revenue, 950 S.W.2d 258 (Mo.App.1997), which the trial court cited, required maintenance reports to include a certificate of analysis.

1998This court stated that "under 19 CSR 25-30.050(4), the director is only required to demonstrate (1) the police department used a solution certified by the solution's manufacturer in calibrating the breath analysis machine and (2) *186 the police department attached proof of the manufacturer's certification to the maintenance report the police department submitted to the department of health." Id. at 480-81 (citing Mullins v. Director of Revenue, 946 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Mo.App.

1998This court stated that “under 19 CSR 25-30.050(4), the director is only required to demonstrate (1) the police department used a solution certified by the solution’s manufacturer in calibrating the breath analysis machine and (2) the police department attached proof of the manufacturer’s certification to the maintenance report the police department submitted to the department of health.” Id. at 480-81 (citing Mullins v. Director of Revenue, 946 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Mo.App.

2003See Kennedy v. Dir. of Revenue, 73 S.W.3d 85, 86-87 (Mo. *303 App. S.D.2002) (overruled on other grounds by Verdoom, 119 S.W.3d at 546-47 ) (holding that the trial court correctly denied admission of test results when the machine gave a status code reading that the “system won’t zero” after the initial test and, instead of letting a maintenance person know about the malfunction and suspending use of the machine, as required, the officer performed another test with the malfunctioning machine three minutes later); Lasley, 17 S.W.3d at 177 (holding that the trial court correctly denied admission

2003W.D.1999) (overruled on other grounds by Verdoom, 119 S.W.3d at 547-48 ) (holding that the trial court correctly excluded test results where the maintenance report did not have a check-mark showing the simulator temperature was determined, evidence showed that if the temperature was outside the regulation range it would affect the BAC reading, and the trial court determined that the failure to check that portion of the report was not because the officer forgot to check it but because he did not perform that step of the maintenance check); State v. Young, 525 S.W.2d 440, 440-41 (Mo.App.1975) (f

2003See Kennedy v. Dir. of Revenue, 73 S.W.3d 85, 86-87 (Mo. *303 App. S.D.2002) (overruled on other grounds by Verdoom, 119 S.W.3d at 546-47 ) (holding that the trial court correctly denied admission of test results when the machine gave a status code reading that the “system won’t zero” after the initial test and, instead of letting a maintenance person know about the malfunction and suspending use of the machine, as required, the officer performed another test with the malfunctioning machine three minutes later); Lasley, 17 S.W.3d at 177 (holding that the trial court correctly denied admission

2003See Kobayshi v. Director of Revenue, 22 S.W.3d 247, 250 (Mo.App.

2002See Wilcutt, 18 S.W.3d at 551 .

1999Green v. Director of Revenue, 961 S.W.2d 936, 938 (Mo.App.

1999See Brooks v. Director of Revenue, 979 S.W.2d 257, 261 (Mo.App.

1999Mesler v. Director of Revenue, 983 S.W.2d 605, 608 (Mo.App.

1999Compare Butts v. Director of Revenue, 980 S.W.2d 187 (Mo.App.

1999(Emphasis added.) This court has further held that, “for those maintenance reports completed with in the dates set out in subsection (4) of this regulation, the Director demonstrated compliance with the Department of Health guidelines by providing a maintenance report accompanied by the certificate of analysis supplied with the simulator solution.” Kafoury , at 191 (citing Tate, at 728; Trumble, at 819-20.) In this case, the maintenance report was completed on August 8, 1997.

1999Kafoury , at 190.

1999Spies v. Director of Revenue, 854 S.W.2d 66, 68 (Mo.App.

1999See, Rogers, 947 S.W.2d at 477-78 ; Shine v. Director of Revenue, 807 S.W.2d 160, 163 (Mo.App.