## Facts

- Walter Todd McDaniel was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and submitted to breath testing on an Intoxilyzer 5000 (I-5000).
- The parties stipulated that the first breath test produced a 0.10% blood-alcohol concentration (BAC).
- A second breath test was attempted but produced an “invalid” result because McDaniel could not provide a sufficient breath sample.
- The arresting officer treated McDaniel’s inability to complete the second sample as a refusal.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted the first test result, and McDaniel was convicted of DUI in district court.
- On direct appeal (with stipulated facts and a waiver of jury trial), McDaniel challenged only the DUI conviction and argued the State failed to satisfy the statutory foundation for admitting the breath-test result.

## Issues

1. Whether the State satisfied Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(a)(1) by showing the I-5000 test was performed according to Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS)-approved methods when only one valid breath sample was obtained.
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the first I-5000 result without proof of strict compliance with the DFS method requiring two valid breath samples.

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama reversed the DUI conviction and remanded.
- The court held the State failed to lay the statutory predicate for admission of the I-5000 result under Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(a)(1).
- Because DFS-approved I-5000 procedures required two valid breath samples and only one valid sample was obtained, the first test result was inadmissible under the statutory method.
- The State did not supply an alternative traditional evidentiary foundation sufficient to admit the test result despite noncompliance with the statutory/administrative method.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ala. Code § 32-5A-194(a)(1), chemical test results are “valid” for statutory admissibility only if performed according to DFS-approved methods and by an individual holding a valid DFS permit.
- When the State relies on the statutory predicate (including judicial notice of DFS methods), it must prove strict compliance with DFS-approved procedures.
- If DFS-approved procedures for a breath test require two valid samples, obtaining only one valid sample does not satisfy the statutory predicate, rendering the result inadmissible under § 32-5A-194(a)(1).
- Noncompliance with the statutory/administrative method may be cured only if the State independently establishes a traditional evidentiary predicate demonstrating reliability and proper administration of the test.

## Conclusion

Because the DFS-approved I-5000 method required two valid breath samples and the State obtained only one valid sample, the statutory predicate for admissibility was not met; the breath-test result should not have been admitted, requiring reversal of McDaniel’s DUI conviction and remand.


McDaniel v. State, 706 So. 2d 1305 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997)