☢ test - Í

Dougherty v. State, 259 Ga.App. 618, 578 S.E.2d 256 (February 12, 2003). State not required to prove that operator’s permit is “in a form approved by the Division of Forensic Sciences.” Fact that operator had a permit, signed by DFS director, containing all information required by the DFS regulations, was sufficient. See Rules of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, § 92-3-.05 (March 2000). Garland v. State, 256 Ga.App. 313, 568 S.E.2d 540 (July 2, 2002). Burden of proving that the Intox 5000 is approved by the state Division of Forensic Sciences (DFS) is satisfied by admitting into evidence the operator’s DFS-issued permit to operate the machine. Jarriel v. State, 255 Ga.App. 305, 565 S.E.2d 521 (May 9, 2002). “Quarterly” inspections of Intoxilyzer some five months apart constituted substantial compliance with GBI “procedure,” where machine was operating properly at both inspections and at time of defendant's test. Results were admissible. Madden v. State, 252 Ga.App. 164, 555 S.E.2d 832 (October 25, 2001). OCGA § 40-6-392(f)’s provision for self- authentication of properly prepared and executed certificates of inspection for approved breath-testing instruments does not violate a defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation, citing Brown v. State , 268 Ga. 76, 77, 485 S.E.2d 486 (1997). State v. Bowen, 274 Ga. 1, 547 S.E.2d 286 (June 4, 2001). OCGA § 35-3-155 exempts the Forensic Sciences Division of the GBI from the publishing requirements of the Administrative Practices Act regarding certification of operators administering chemical tests. Adopting dissent of J. Etheridge in State v. Bowen , 245 Ga.App. 159, 537 S.E.2d 417 (2000). Diaz v. State, 245 Ga.App. 380, 537 S.E.2d 784 (July 27, 2000). DUI and related convictions affirmed; proper functioning of Intoxilyzer could be established by operator, without inspection certificates. Based on Gidey v. State, 228 Ga.App. 250, 251–252(1), 491 S.E.2d 406 (1997). “Here, as in Gidey, the individual who conducted the breath tests, Deputy Sheriff Derrick Preston, testified that he was trained and certified to perform the test, and his operator's permit was placed in evidence. He testified that the testing methods were those approved by the GBI; that he had used the machine before and after Diaz's tests; that the machine functioned properly when testing Diaz, appeared to be in good working order, and did not appear to have any parts missing; and that the machine performed the usual self-tests before testing Diaz and revealed no problems. This evidence satisfied the requirements of OCGA § 40–6–392(a)(1)(A). Gidey, supra. The trial court's admission of the breath test results into evidence was therefore proper.” Inspection certificates were also tendered here. Prindle v. State, 240 Ga.App. 461, 523 S.E.2d 44 (September 28, 1999). 1. Defendant’s conviction for DUI affirmed; contrary to defendant’s argument, “[g]iven the undisputed evidence that the officer conducting the test was trained to use the breath machine used here, took a refresher course on its use, and had a certificate that was valid on its face on the date of the test, we find that the state satisfied its burden of proving the officer had a valid permit. See generally Daniel v. State, 231 Ga.App. 125, 128(2)(b), 497 S.E.2d 656 (1998); Waggoner v. State, 228 Ga.App. 148, 150-151(3)(a), 491 S.E.2d 88 (1997).” Defendant argued that the permit was improperly issued because the officer couldn’t remember how long the refresher course lasted, but believed it was “only about four or five hours,” not the eight hours required by GBI Rule 92-3-.04(6). 2. Intox Certificates of Inspection are not discoverable as scientific reports under OCGA § 17-16- 23. Lanier v. State, 237 Ga.App. 875, 517 S.E.2d 106 (May 4, 1999). Evidence was sufficient to establish that intox machine was working properly. “Contrary to Lanier’s enumeration, the State introduced a certificate of inspection performed before Lanier’s test and after Lanier’s test showing that the machine was working properly. In addition, Trooper Gunnin testified that the instrument was operating properly at the time he performed the test on Lanier. Contrary to Lanier’s argument, an inspection directly before and after each defendant’s test is not required. Cf. Rowell v. State, 229 Ga.App. 397, 398-399(1)(b), 494 S.E.2d 5 (1997).” Gunn v. State, 236 Ga.App. 901, 514 S.E.2d 77 (March 12, 1999). Intoxilyzer certificates were admissible based on foundation under OCGA § 40-6-392(f). “‘A further foundation under the “business records exception,” OCGA § 24-3- 14(b), is rendered unnecessary by legislative enactment.’ Jackson v. State, 233 Ga.App. 568, 572-573(2)(b), 504 S.E.2d 505 (1998).”