Channell v. State

I respectfully dissent. Appellant’s two enumerations on appeal assign error to the trial court’s admitting the testimony of the arresting officer as to the results of an initial alcohol screening test. The basis of these enumerations is appellant’s contention that the breath-testing device utilized by the arresting officer is not one which has *158been approved by the Director of the Division of Forensic Sciences1 and, thus, that the State failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the testimony complained of.

The testing device in question (an “alka-sensor”) is, indeed, not one of…