The Washington Supreme Court ruled on August 13, 2026, that breath test results can be admitted as evidence in a vehicular homicide case even when tiny strands of tobacco are found in the defendant's mouth. This decision affects how law enforcement officers handle breath tests and the admissibility of such evidence in court.

The case, State v. Sliger, No. 103563-2, centers around John Henry Sliger, who was involved in a fatal collision with a dirt bike. Following the accident, Sliger took a breath test, which indicated his blood alcohol level was over the legal limit. However, he argued that the test results should be suppressed because there were tiny strands of chewing tobacco in his mouth at the time of the test.

The court's ruling is significant because it clarifies the legal standards regarding what constitutes a 'foreign substance' in the context of breath tests. The court found that the State provided sufficient evidence to show that the tiny strands of tobacco did not affect the validity of the breath test results.

Background

John Henry Sliger was charged with vehicular homicide after a collision in April 2020 that resulted in the death of a dirt bike rider. At the scene, Sliger admitted to drinking before the crash and agreed to a field sobriety test, which included a portable breath test. Before taking the test, he was instructed to remove chewing tobacco from his mouth, which he did.

After being taken to jail, Sliger was asked to take a Draeger breath test. When questioned about any foreign substances in his mouth, he denied having any. However, the arresting officer, Deputy Mitchell Kahns, noted the presence of tiny strands of tobacco stuck between Sliger’s teeth. Despite this, the test was administered, and the results indicated that Sliger was over the legal limit for alcohol.

Sliger moved to suppress the breath test results, arguing that the presence of tobacco constituted a foreign substance that should have disqualified the test's validity. The trial court denied his motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, leading Sliger to seek review from the Washington Supreme Court.

The Ruling

The Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the State had met its burden of establishing prima facie evidence that Sliger did not have any foreign substances in his mouth when it presented expert testimony indicating that the tiny strands of tobacco would not affect the reliability of the breath test.

The court stated, "We hold that the State produced prima facie evidence that Sliger did not have any foreign substances in his mouth when it provided expert testimony that the tiny strands of tobacco observed by the officer would not affect the validity of the breath test."

The ruling emphasized that the presence of tiny strands of tobacco is not the same as having a substantial foreign substance, such as a lump of tobacco, which could invalidate the test. The court noted that the officer's training and experience led him to believe that the small strands would not impact the test's accuracy.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future DUI cases in Washington State. It clarifies that minor substances in a person's mouth, which do not impact the validity of breath tests, may not necessarily disqualify the test results. This decision aims to streamline the legal process in DUI cases by reducing the number of challenges based on the presence of small foreign substances.

The ruling also reinforces the importance of expert testimony in cases where the presence of a foreign substance is disputed. It sets a precedent that allows for the admission of breath test results even when minor substances are present, as long as they do not affect the test's reliability.

What's Next

The decision can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is unclear if Sliger will pursue that option. There are no related cases currently pending that would directly challenge this ruling.