p.e.i test in Alabama

2003“In Ex parte Bush, 474 So.2d 168 (Ala.1985), this Court addressed the issue of what elements were necessary to lay the proper predicate for admissibility of the P.E.I. test results.

1988Estes v. State , 358 So.2d 1050 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 1057 (Ala. 1978) (court's original opinion withdrawn and substituted on rehearing), cert. denied , 358 So.2d 1057 (Ala. 1978). "[I]t is the law enforcement agency, not the city, which designates which test is to be used." Estes , 358 So.2d at 1053. " 'In Ex parte Bush , 474 So.2d 168 (Ala. 1985), this Court addressed the issue of what elements were necessary to lay the proper predicate for admissibility of the P.E.I. test results.

2003Therefore, there is no need for the State to offer testimony concerning a periodic inspection of the testing equipment in order to lay the predicate for admissibility of the P.E.I. test results.” 492 So.2d at 294-95 .

1992At the outset, we note that we are mindful of the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Reed , 492 So.2d 293 (Ala. 1986), which held that, because the State failed to introduce any testimony that the agency administering the photoelectric intoxilyzer ("P.E.I.") test to the defendant had adopted the method of testing, the State failed to lay the proper predicate for admission of the P.E.I. test results.

1976"While it is unnecessary for the prosecution to resort to the P.E.I. test in order to make a prima facie case [Broxton v. State , 27 Ala. App. 298 , 171 So. 390 (1936); McMurry v. State , 28 Ala. App. 253 , 184 So. 42 (1938)], the results of the test, which we hold were inadmissible, were highly prejudicial.

1976While it is unnecessary for the prosecution to resort to the P.E.I. test in order to make a prima facie case [Broxton v. State , 27 Ala. App. 298 , 171 So. 390 (1936); McMurry v. State , 28 Ala. App. 253 , 184 So. 42 (1938)], the results of the test, which we hold were inadmissible, were highly prejudicial.

1976While it is unnecessary for the prosecution to resort to the P.E.I. test in order to make a prima facie case [Broxton v. State , 27 Ala. App. 298 , 171 So. 390 (1936); McMurry v. State , 28 Ala. App. 253 , 184 So. 42 (1938)], the results of the test, which we hold were inadmissible, were highly prejudicial.

1976While it is unnecessary for the prosecution to resort to the P.E.I. test in order to make a prima facie case [Broxton v. State , 27 Ala. App. 298 , 171 So. 390 (1936); McMurry v. State , 28 Ala. App. 253 , 184 So. 42 (1938)], the results of the test, which we hold were inadmissible, were highly prejudicial.

1976"While it is unnecessary for the prosecution to resort to the P.E.I. test in order to make a prima facie case [Broxton v. State , 27 Ala. App. 298 , 171 So. 390 (1936); McMurry v. State , 28 Ala. App. 253 , 184 So. 42 (1938)], the results of the test, which we hold were inadmissible, were highly prejudicial.

1976While it is unnecessary for the prosecution to resort to the P.E.I. test in order to make a prima facie case [Broxton v. State , 27 Ala. App. 298 , 171 So. 390 (1936); McMurry v. State , 28 Ala. App. 253 , 184 So. 42 (1938)], the results of the test, which we hold were inadmissible, were highly prejudicial.

1990Cf. Berkemer v. McCarty , 468 U.S. 420 , 441 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984), wherein the Supreme Court held that the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop was not tantamount to a custodial interrogation, and that the motorist was not "in custody" for purposes of Miranda until after he had failed the field test and the officer had informed him that he would be taken to the public safety office, where a P.E.I. test would be administered.

1990Cf. Berkemer v. McCarty , 468 U.S. 420 , 441 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984), wherein the Supreme Court held that the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop was not tantamount to a custodial interrogation, and that the motorist was not "in custody" for purposes of Miranda until after he had failed the field test and the officer had informed him that he would be taken to the public safety office, where a P.E.I. test would be administered.

1990In Bilbrey v. State , 531 So.2d 27 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), the appellant was arrested for driving under the influence and requested a blood alcohol test independent of the P.E.I. test he submitted to at police headquarters.

1990Moreover, in McCall v. State , 549 So.2d 623 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), this court held that a brief questioning of the defendant in a patrol car prior to the defendant's arrest did not convert an ordinary traffic stop into a custodial interrogation.

1988Estes v. State , 358 So.2d 1050 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 1057 (Ala. 1978) (court's original opinion withdrawn and substituted on rehearing), cert. denied , 358 So.2d 1057 (Ala. 1978). "[I]t is the law enforcement agency, not the city, which designates which test is to be used." Estes , 358 So.2d at 1053. " 'In Ex parte Bush , 474 So.2d 168 (Ala. 1985), this Court addressed the issue of what elements were necessary to lay the proper predicate for admissibility of the P.E.I. test results.

1988Estes v. State , 358 So.2d 1050 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 1057 (Ala. 1978) (court's original opinion withdrawn and substituted on rehearing), cert. denied , 358 So.2d 1057 (Ala. 1978). "[I]t is the law enforcement agency, not the city, which designates which test is to be used." Estes , 358 So.2d at 1053. " 'In Ex parte Bush , 474 So.2d 168 (Ala. 1985), this Court addressed the issue of what elements were necessary to lay the proper predicate for admissibility of the P.E.I. test results.

1985According to Estes this element of the predicate may be supplied by "any officer who would be in a position to know which test was authorized." Estes at 1053 ; Reeves v. City of Montgomery , 466 So.2d 1041 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985).