“The 20-Minute Test Rule”: A New Benchmark for Fair Administration of Intoxilyzer Breath Tests

Introduction

In the case of Cailin Leann Gackle v. North Dakota Department of Transportation (2025 N.D. 37), the Supreme Court of North Dakota addressed the proper interpretation and implementation of the 20‐minute waiting period under the North Dakota Approved Method for administering the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test. The dispute arose after Gackle’s driving privileges were suspended for 365 days following an arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. The key issue centered on whether the testing officer complied with the mandatory waiting period prescribed by the approved method when re-administering the test after an initial invalid result. This commentary explores the background of the case, the critical questions regarding the interpretation of “before repeating the Intoxilyzer 8000 test,” and the resulting precedent that sharpens the standard for fair test administration.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court reversed the earlier decision that upheld Gackle’s license suspension. It found that the North Dakota Department of Transportation failed to prove that the breath test was fairly administered, as the officer did not adhere to the approved method by waiting the required 20 minutes between the termination of the invalid first test and the initiation of the second test sequence. Despite the officer’s claim of having observed a “second twenty-minute deprivation period,” the timestamps on the test record indicated only an 18-minute lapse. With the absence of expert testimony to mitigate the impact of this deviation, the Court determined that the scientific accuracy and reliability of the test may have been compromised. Consequently, Gackle’s driving privileges are to be reinstated.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment cites several precedents that might guide future applications of the approved method:

Kastet v. Henke and Bayles v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. – These cases reaffirm the standard of deference given to agency factual findings. They underscored the need for the evidence in administrative proceedings to support factual determinations.
Ringsaker v. Dir., N.D. Dep't of Transp. and Hanson v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. – These decisions establish the burden on the Department to prove that an Intoxilyzer test was administered fairly, emphasizing the “evidentiary shortcut” where chemical analysis results are admitted only if proper procedures are followed.
Keller v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. – Particularly instructive is Keller’s discussion on deviations from the approved method. The Court in Keller held that deviations affecting test reliability necessitate expert testimony before the results can be deemed fairly administered.
Von Ruden – Although Von Ruden dealt with a manual abortion of the test and the requirement to observe a deprivation period, the case helps clarify how timing requirements under the approved method may be interpreted when the method is silent on certain procedural details.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s opinion is primarily anchored in a close reading and logical interpretation of the North Dakota Approved Method for administering the Intoxilyzer 8000 test. Key aspects of the reasoning include:

Interpretation of “Test”: The Court examined whether the term “Intoxilyzer 8000 test” refers narrowly to the collection of a breath sample or, more broadly, to the entire test sequence. The judgment concludes that it refers to the entire test sequence. This interpretation demands that the 20-minute waiting period occur after the termination of the invalid test sequence rather than merely between individual sample collections.
Application of the Approved Method: The approved method explicitly states that following a “Difference Too Great” result, a full 20-minute wait is required before repeating the test. The Court focused on the phrase “before repeating the Intoxilyzer 8000 test” to argue that the waiting period applies to the test sequence as a whole.
Impact of Deviations: Consistent with previous case law (e.g., Keller), the Court held that any deviation from the approved method that might taint the scientific accuracy of the test must be supported by expert testimony to prove it did not affect the outcomes. In this case, the Department’s failure to provide such testimony was pivotal.
Role of Timestamps and Evidence: The factual record – specifically, the timestamps indicating an 18-minute gap – directly contradicted the officer’s testimony. The Court placed significant weight on these clerical details, emphasizing that such a demonstration of non-compliance cannot be dismissed as a harmless error.

Impact on Future Cases and the Law

This decision establishes a clear and more rigorous standard for the administration of breath tests using the Intoxilyzer 8000. Implications include:

Enforcement of Strict Timing Protocols: Future cases will likely scrutinize the precise timing between test sequences. Law enforcement agencies must ensure that a full 20-minute interval is observed between an invalid test and a repeat sequence.
Enhanced Judicial Review of Administrative Procedures: The ruling reinforces that deviations from approved statutory testing procedures require robust evidentiary support, including expert testimony where necessary, to ascertain that scientific accuracy has not been compromised.
Operational Adjustments: Agencies, to avoid reversal on appeal, may need to revise training for officers to stress strict adherence to all procedural steps in the approved method.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal and technical concepts from this Judgment deserve simplification for easier understanding:

Intoxilyzer 8000 Test Sequence: Rather than simply taking a breath sample, the test is a sequence of procedures designed to ensure the reliability of the blood alcohol concentration measurement.
"Difference Too Great": This occurs when two consecutive breath samples differ by more than 0.020 AC, rendering the first test invalid and necessitating a retake.
20-Minute Waiting Period: The regulation is intended to allow any residual mouth alcohol to dissipate, thereby ensuring that a subsequent breath sample is not contaminated. The Court’s interpretation requires that the waiting period occur before initiating an entirely new test sequence, not simply between individual breath collections.
Expert Testimony Requirement: When the procedure deviates from the approved method in a way that might affect the results, the state must provide expert testimony to demonstrate that the reliability of the test remains intact.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court of North Dakota’s decision in the Gackle case provides a critical clarification: for the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test, the full 20-minute waiting period must elapse after the invalidation of a test sequence before a new test sequence begins. This interpretation reinforces rigorous procedural compliance to secure the integrity of chemical test results. By reversing the suspension of Gackle’s driving privileges, the Court has emphasized that even seemingly minor deviations—such as an 18-minute wait instead of a mandated 20-minute interval—can have significant legal implications if they potentially affect the scientific accuracy of the test without proper justification via expert testimony. This ruling not only guides future administrative practices but also strengthens the broader adjudicative standards ensuring fairness in the administration of evidence in DUI cases.

Through its detailed analysis of statutory interpretation, evidentiary requirements, and adherence to precedent, this Judgment sets a new, critical benchmark for the fair administration of breath tests—a development that professionals in DUI law and law enforcement alike will be keenly watching in subsequent litigation and policy adjustments.