Motion to suppress blood alcohol test results; Expert testimony; MRE 702; People v Unger; People v Tipolt; People v Fosnaugh; Reliability; Effect of accreditation; Michigan State Police Lansing Forensic Laboratory (the MSP Lab)

The court concluded that the trial court’s failure to “state what scientific testimony, verification of data, or quality control aspect it relied upon in” determining the blood alcohol analysis here was reliable left the court unable to review its decision. Thus, in this interlocutory appeal it vacated the order denying defendant’s motion to suppress his blood alcohol test results and remanded “for articulation of the factual basis for admission of the” test. He contended the MSP Lab, “which conducted the analysis, did not follow the applicable administrative rule or the lab’s own procedures.” He further asserted that it “failed to properly maintain the equipment used for his analysis and applied unreliable principles and methodology.” The trial court was presented with competing expert testimony “about the MSP Lab’s process for testing blood samples across four days of testimony. These competing experts opined extensively regarding the process of analyzing blood samples, the procedure applicable to detect contamination, and whether those procedures were applied to the batch of blood samples.” The trial court then determined “that the policies and procedures had been satisfied, the initial burden of demonstrating enough reliability had been met, and the threshold of admissibility satisfied. In support of this conclusion, [it] explained that the data was provided by a lab that performed testing vetted through an accreditation process.” But the court noted that while it was “evident that accreditation would play a role in determining whether the MSP Lab’s blood alcohol analysis of defendant’s sample was reliable, there is no suggestion that accreditation alone suffices to satisfy the requirements of MRE 702.” Yet the trial court, apart from its statement as to accreditation, “did not explain how it determined that the blood alcohol analysis was reliable—that is, how the evidence satisfied MRE 702—effectively preventing this Court from reviewing the issue.” The court noted that its remand did “not limit the trial court’s discretion, upon articulation of its rationale, to grant or deny the motion to suppress the blood alcohol test.” In addition, it was “neither required nor precluded from taking further evidence; that issue” was left to its discretion.