In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether CRS § 42-2-126(8)(c) requires all written statements from non-law enforcement sources to be presented in affidavit form and sworn to under penalty of perjury before they can be considered as evidence in driver’s license revocation hearings. CRS § 42-2-126(8)(c) provides that, in driver’s license revocation proceedings, a hearing officer “may consider evidence contained in affidavits from persons other than the respondent,” so long as those affidavits meet certain requirements, including the requirement that the affidavits be sworn to under penalty of perjury. The Supreme Court held that CRS § 42-2-126(8)(c) does not require all written statements from non-law enforcement sources to be presented in affidavit form and sworn to under penalty of perjury before they can be considered as evidence in driver’s license revocation hearings.

Specifically, the Court held that the blood alcohol content test report in this case did not have to meet the affidavit requirements of CRS § 42-2-126(8)(c) for the hearing officer to consider its contents. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.