….
The results of a chemical test involving the analysis of a person’s breath are not admissible in a proceeding concerning driving while intoxicated [citation omitted] if “(1) the test operator; (2) the test equipment; (3) the chemicals used in the test, if any; or (4) the techniques used in the test; have not been approved in accordance with the rules adopted under subsection (a).” Ind. Code § 9-30-6- 5(d). Under subsection (a), the director of the state department of toxicology is required to adopt rules regarding, in relevant part: “(2) Standards and regulations for the: (A) selection; and (B) certification; of breath test equipment and chemicals.” Ind. Code § 9-30-6-5(a).
Wolpert argues the State did not prove the “chemicals used in the test” were certified under Ind. Admin. Rule 2-3-5 . . . .
However, the State need not admit evidence that demonstrates the certification of the chemicals alone because proof of that certification is provided by the certificate that proves the breath test equipment passed the required inspection. It is included in the administrative rule regarding certification and inspection of the breath test equipment, which states in relevant part:
(a) A person authorized by the department shall inspect each breath test instrument at the instrument’s established location at least once every one hundred eighty (180) days. If the location of a breath test instrument is changed, the instrument must be inspected and certified under this rule prior to use.
….
(c) The inspection shall include tests using ethanol-water or ethanol-gas standards selected and certified under section 5 of this rule to simulate breath samples.
….
260 Ind. Admin. Rule 2-3-2 (2014) (emphasis added).
The State entered into evidence the signed “Certificate of Inspection and Compliance of Breath Test Instrument,” which stated “Inspection of the instrument listed below was performed pursuant to 260 IAC 2, and it is hereby certified that the instrument is in compliance with the standards of 260 IAC 2-3- 2[.]” (State’s Exhibit 1.) This certificate was “admissible and constitute[d] prima facie evidence that the equipment or chemical was inspected and approved by the Department of Toxicology and was in proper working condition on the date of the chemical breath test if the approval was given not more than 180 days before the chemical breath test.” Fields [v. State], 807 N.E.2d [106,] 111 [(Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied]. Ind. Admin. Rule 2-3-2 requires that the inspector examine not only the device but also the chemicals used within. The State provided evidence such certification existed. We therefore cannot say the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the results of Wolpert’s breath test.3
[Footnote 3:] Both parties cite State v. Rumple, 723 N.E.2d 941 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), in support of their respective arguments. However, our decision in Rumple was based on a now-repealed version of the Indiana Administrative Code regarding the certification of devices used to measure a person’s BAC and thus is not applicable to this case.
….
Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.