Concurring:
I concur with the reasoning of the Court’s opinion and its resolution of the second question; thus, I also concur in the result. I write separately because I feel that we should also *376resolve the first question. Additionally, I disagree with the views expressed in respect to that first question by Chief Judge Bell in his dissent.
While I agree that, generally, Maryland Code (1977, 1999 Repl.Vol., 2000 Cum.Supp.), section 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article1 does impose a mandatory duty upon officers to provide a test for alcohol concentration when a detained person consents to the taking of the test, I would not hold that such a test needs to produce a percentage reading that might result in admissible evidence. Sometimes, as in this case, results generally admissible as evidence cannot be obtained. In the case sub judice, the Howard County Police took four samples as part of three tests for alcohol concentration on an approved intoximeter that was in proper working order.2 In my view, the machine performed as it was designed to operate on all four occasions. On the first sample of the first test it registered “0.173” followed by “insufficient breath” on the second sample. The second sampling was to confirm the first result. On two subsequent samplings, it registered “interfering substance.” When the first sample of the second test indicated “interfering substance,” the officer began another test and the first sample of that test also indicated “interfering substance.” At that point, with only thirty minutes remaining in the statutorily mandated testing period, he ceased administering the test.
In my view, there was no evidence of a machine malfunction — the results given are what the device is designed to register when certain conditions exist. The fact that the test results did not provide a percentage reading that might be *377admissible as evidence3 of intoxication or sobriety did not, in my view, then impose upon the State the additional duty of administering a blood test for alcohol concentration even if there was a facility in close proximity, where petitioner could have been transported and blood taken within the thirty minutes remaining of the testing period.
II. Analysis
While section 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article may generally impose a duty upon officers to obtain a test for alcohol concentration when a detained person consents to the taking of the test, I would not hold that such a test needs to produce admissible percentage results. Such tests do not always produce such results. The fact that, in the case sub judice, the test results did not provide admissible percentage evidence of intoxication or sobriety did not, as I perceive it, then impose upon the State the additional duty of further administering a blood test for alcohol concentration. To the extent blood test evidence might be exculpatory, the State is not generally required to generate such evidence. It must produce it if it has it, but normally the State is not required to undertake processes that might lead to the creation of exculpatory evidence. Under the facts of this case a blood test to *378determine alcohol concentration was not, in my view, mandated in the first instance.
I note initially when attempting to discern the intention of the Legislature in enacting a particular statute, we recently said in Edgewater Liquors, Inc. v. Liston, 349 Md. 803, 709 A.2d 1301 (1998):
“In construing the meaning of a word in a statute, the cardinal rule is to ascertain and carry out the real legislative intention.” Legislative intent generally is derived from the words of the statute at issue. “We are not constrained, however, by ... ‘the literal or usual meaning’ of the terms at issue.” “Furthermore, we do not read statutory language ‘in isolation or out of context [but construe it] in light of the legislature’s general purpose and in the context of the statute as a whole.’ ”
Id. at 807-08, 709 A.2d at 1303 (internal citations omitted) (alteration in original). We commented in an earlier case:
When we pursue the context of statutory language, we are not limited to the words of the statute as they are printed in the Annotated Code. We may and often must consider other “external manifestations” or “persuasive evidence,” including a bill’s title and function paragraphs, amendments that occurred as it passed through the legislature, its relationship to earlier and subsequent legislation, and other material that fairly bears on the fundamental issue of legislative purpose or goal, which becomes the context within which we read the particular language before us in a given case.
... Thus, in State v. One 1983 Chevrolet Van, 309 Md. 327, 524 A.2d 51 (1987), .... [although we did not describe any of the statutes involved in that case as ambiguous or uncertain, we did search for legislative purpose or meaning— what Judge Orth, writing for the Court, described as “the legislative scheme.”.... See also Ogrinz v. James, 309 Md. 381, 524 A.2d 77 (1987), in which we considered legislative history (a committee report) to assist in constru*379ing legislation that we did not identify as ambiguous or of uncertain meaning.
Kaczorowski v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 514-15, 525 A.2d 628, 632-33 (1987); see Laznovsky v. Laznovsky, 357 Md. 586, 606-07, 745 A.2d 1054, 1065 (2000); State v. Bell, 351 Md. 709, 717-19, 720 A.2d 311, 315-16 (1998); see also Williams v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 359 Md. 101, 115-17, 753 A.2d 41, 49 (2000); Riemer v. Columbia Medical Plan, 358 Md. 222, 235-36, 747 A.2d 677, 684-85 (2000).
Read together, section 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article and section 10-305 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article control the actions that a law enforcement officer must take when stopping or detaining any person who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe is or has been driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. First, provided that such a test is not mandatorily required under subsection 16-205.1(c),4 the officer is to detain the person, request that the person permit a test to be taken, and advise the person of the administrative sanctions that shall be imposed for refusal to take the test. If the detained individual elects to take a test, section 10-305(a) mandates that the test shall be a breath test except in three circumstances. Only when: (1) the individual is unconscious or otherwise incapable of refusing to take a test to determine alcohol concentration; (2) injuries to the defendant require removal of the defendant to a medical facility; or (3) the equipment for administering the test of breath is not available, shall a blood test be administered.
In the case sub judice, the police officers followed the requirements of these two statutes. Officer Catherman pulled over petitioner’s vehicle after it demonstrated signs of erratic driving by crossing the right side lane marker and quickly swerving back onto the road. When Officer Catherman ap*380proached petitioner’s vehicle, he smelled alcohol, noticed that petitioner’s eyes were bloodshot, and that her speech was slurred. After conducting field sobriety tests, Officer Cather-man determined that he had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was driving while under the influence of alcohol. At this point, in accordance with section 16-205.1(b), he detained petitioner and took her to a police station to conduct breath tests to determine alcohol concentration.
Once at the police station, in accordance with section 16-205.1(b), petitioner was advised of her rights to refuse or to submit to a test, and was asked if she would submit to a breath test. Petitioner agreed and Sergeant Mitchell administered several breath tests on the Intoximeter 3000. The first sample gave a reading of “0.173,” the second sample gave a reading of “insufficient breath,” and the third and fourth samples both gave readings of “interfering substance.” The Intoximeter 3000 performed as it was designed to do. It gave four readings based on petitioner’s breath samples’ inputs. The statutes do not require that a blood test be offered to a conscious defendant when a properly operating machine fails to produce a potentially admissible result. The Legislature has mandated that when an individual requests an alcohol concentration test, the test shall be a breath test except under three specific sets of circumstances, none of which apply here.
In respect to the first question, petitioner argues, in essence, that the police were required to administer a blood test to determine alcohol concentration when the Intoximeter 3000 failed to provide a result stated in percentages. Her rationale, and that of the dissent, is that because the Intoximeter 3000 failed to provide such á result, it is as if the equipment for administering the test of breath was not available. Thus, she, and the dissent, contend that under section 10-305(a)(3), the police were mandated to administer a blood test to determine alcohol concentration. I disagree.
The breath test equipment was available at the time of petitioner’s arrest and it was utilized in an attempt to obtain, results that might be admissible. The Intoximeter 3000 was *381never shown to be functioning in any way other than a proper manner. It is designed to indicate “insufficient breath” when a person being tested provides insufficient breath. That is what it did during the second sampling when petitioner, who had just found out that her prior test had produced a percentage reading of 0.173 (a level far above the level of intoxication), failed to produce a sufficient quantity of breath to be tested.5 Two other tests consisting of one sample for each test breathed into the machine by appellant were administered. The machine indicated that there was an “interfering substance.” When the machine detects an interfering substance, it is designed to so indicate and to not produce a percentage figure, presumably because such a percentage figure, under those circumstances, might not be accurate. That is what the device did in the case sub judice. In other words, the device operated properly. The dissent argues that because the device did not produce a percentage result, it was “unavailable,” stating “the results of the [Bjreathalyzer’s operation ... are proof positive that the [Bjreathalyzer ... was not ‘in proper working order.’ ... [A] machine that does not produce, or is incapable of producing, the results it was designed to produce serves no useful purpose and is, thereby, rendered unavailable for purposes of § 10-305. That is simply a matter of common sense and logic.”
I disagree -with the premise of the dissent. The machine, as I have indicated, is apparently designed to indicate “insufficient breath” when that situation exists, and to indicate “interfering substance” when that situation exists. That, in my view, is the better common sensical and logical position. If *382the dissent’s view of “common sense and logic,” were to prevail, it would completely eliminate the viability of Breathalyzer testing. The dissent states “When it does not produce such a [percentage] result, it is not working properly.” Under that rationale, a person being tested could simply withhold sufficient breath as petitioner may have done when called upon to furnish the second sample, resulting in an “insufficient breath” reading, and preventing the device from registering a percentage result. Under the dissent, the machine would then be “unavailable” and a blood test mandatory.6
In short order, it would become known that all one had to do to beat a Breathalyzer test was to withhold breath, thereby making the machine “unavailable.” She or he could then argue that they had consented (thereby retaining their driving privileges under the implied consent provisions of the statutes), but argue that the machine was not operable, i.e., not available. Then the officer would be required to obtain blood tests. In other words, the dissent’s position would be the death knell for the utilization of Breathalyzer testing in Maryland, when, clearly, it is the method that the Legislature has indicated it prefers.
The readings that the machine displayed were consistent with its programming and function — it merely was not providing percentage results as to the sobriety or intoxication of petitioner. As discussed, supra, Petitioner’s first test consisted of two samples, the second of which recorded “insufficient breath.” The regulations of the toxicologist contemplate situations where percentage readings are not obtained based upon insufficient breath and provides the following guidance:
The test sequence is now completed and the results are printed. If the subject fails to complete the required test sequence by either not providing sufficient breath samples as indicated by the instrument or failing to give samples *383when directed to do so by the Operator, then the test shall be considered incomplete and shall be recorded in the State of Maryland Alcohol Testing Log as a refusal.
Regulations of the Toxicologist at 15. This language recognizes that the breath testing equipment may not always provide its operators with percentage-based results. No where does it suggest that additional Breathalyzer tests be administered or that a blood test would then be required.7
This Court recently had the opportunity to analyze section 10-305 in Hyle, 348 Md. 143, 702 A.2d 760. In that case, an individual, Hyle, was suspected of driving while intoxicated. Similar to the petitioner in this case, he admitted to drinking, smelled of alcohol, and performed poorly on field sobriety tests. He was arrested and taken to the Central District Police Station in Baltimore City where, after being informed of his rights, he agreed to take a breath test. Because no qualified technician was available to perform the breath test, Hyle was told that he would be transported to Mercy Hospital for a blood test. Hyle refused to take the blood test and subsequently had his license suspended for 120 days. His appeals of the administrative suspension of his driving privileges, to both an administrative law judge and the Circuit Court for Worcester County, were affirmed.8 We reversed, holding that a motorist detained on suspicion of drunk driving was not required to submit to a blood test solely because there was no qualified person available to administer a breath test. Before this Court, Hyle successfully argued that the equipment to conduct the test was available and that the fact that there was no qualified person to administer the test did not make the equipment unavailable. Thus, a blood test was not compelled because the exception outlined in 10 — 305(a)(3) was not applicable to the facts in Hyle.
*384Similarly, the exception outlined in 10-305(a)(3) is not applicable to the facts of the case sub judice. The Court noted in Hyle, 348 Md. at 151, 702 A.2d at 764, that “the statute does not provide an exemption where the ‘test’ is unavailable, but instead uses the specific term ‘equipment.’ ” The Court stated that, “[w]hile it is possible to say that the test cannot be administered without a qualified person and, thus, without a qualified person the ‘test’ is unavailable, the same cannot be said with respect to equipment.” Id. Similarly, in the case at bar, although admissible percentage readings were not obtained, it cannot be said that the equipment used to administer the test was not available.9
Maryland has demonstrated a clear preference for breath tests over blood tests in the determination of alcohol concentration. Hyle provides a background behind this preference and substantial history behind the evolution of section 10-305:
Prior to a 1983 amendment, § 10-305 permitted the defendant to choose whether to take a blood test or a breath test. Chapter 289 of the Acts of 1983. Concern arose regarding the increasing number of defendants choosing blood tests over breath tests because of: (1) the difficulty of accomplishing the blood test in certain situations; (2) the delay in processing caused by administering blood tests instead of breath tests; and (3) the problems caused by the necessity to have medical personnel attend hearings where a blood test was used. See, e.g., Testimony of [then] Lieutenant Governor J. Joseph Curran, Jr., before the Senate Constitutional and Public Law Committee (Senate Bill 513) and the House Judiciary Committee (House Bill 885); Summary of Committee Report, Part III, of the Senate Constitutional and Public Law Committee, Senate Bill 513 of 1983; Maryland Department of Transportation, Position on Proposed Legislation on Senate Bill 513 (February 23, 1983). *385When § 10-305 was being amended, it originally called for the police officer to select the type of test. Ch. 238 of the Acts of 1983. As originally drafted, the bill read: “The defendant’s failure to take the test selected by the police officer is a refusal to take the test, ... unless failure to take the test is due to facilities or equipment not being available for the administration of the test.” Id. The purpose was originally stated as follows: “FOR the purpose of permitting the police officer to select the type of test for alcohol or drugs to be administered to a defendant....” Id. This version, however, did not pass. In fact, “[t]he bill failed 28-17 after a number of senators complained that it would give too much discretion to law enforcement officers and harm motorists’ rights.” Tom Linthicum, Bill to tighten intoxication tests given new life, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 1983, at F14.
The version that ultimately passed eliminated officer discretion with respect to the type of test to be administered, and instead statutorily determined which type of test would be administered: “FOR the purpose of designating the type of test for alcohol or drugs to be administered to a defendant under certain circumstances.... ” Ch. 289 of the Acts of 1983. The final version stated that the breath test would be the test to be administered, but carved out three exceptions including the one at issue in [the Hyle ] case.
In enacting this legislation, the legislature did not altogether ban the use of blood tests, but did express a clear preference for breath tests while severely restricting situations where a blood test could be used. An examination of the bill file reveals that the legislature was provided with ample evidence that breath tests were preferable to blood tests. See, e.g., Summary of Committee Report, Part III, of the Senate Constitutional and Public Law Committee, Senate Bill 513 of 1983 (describing one of the purposes of the bill as “preventing] defendants from subverting the administration of a test, and ... aid[ing] in the prosecution of drunk driving cases by obviating the necessity of summoning medical personnel to testify at the trial of most of such *386cases (as is necessary when a blood test is administered”)); Testimony of [then] Lieutenant Governor J. Joseph Curran, Jr., before the Senate Constitutional and Public Law Committee (Senate Bill 513) and the House Judiciary Committee (House Bill 885)(stating that blood tests are “sometimes difficult to accomplish in certain field situations” and that blood tests cause delay); Maryland Department of Transportation, Position on Proposed Legislation on Senate Bill 513 (February 23,1983).
Furthermore, the bill file contains the National Safety Council, Alcohol and the Impaired Driver — A Manual on the Medicolegal Aspects of Chemical Tests for Intoxication with Supplement on Breath/Alcohol Tests 94-97 (Chicago 1976) (Manual). The Manual sets forth the many advantages to using the breath test, including: (1) While a blood test requires laboratory facilities and thus takes longer to complete, a breath test “is obtainable within a few minutes”; (2) A breath test “accurately reflects the actual pulmonary arterial blood-alcohol level at the time of the test”; (3) Breath test specimens avoid “evidentiary safeguard problems”; (4) Breath tests require less technical training to administer; (5) The facilities required to administer a breath test are minimal; and (6) Subjects usually have less objection to the collection of breath. Manual, at 94-95. Furthermore, the disadvantages of breath tests listed in the Manual are all diminished by specific provisions of Maryland’s drunk driving laws. For example, the Manual states that some cooperation is necessary to administer the test. Manual, at 96. Maryland’s statute only permits the breath test to be administered with the licensee’s consent. § 10-309(a). The Manual also states that the test is not applicable to an unconscious person. Manual, at 96. Maryland’s statute requiring a breath test has a specific exemption where the licensee is unconscious. § 10-305(a)(1). The Manual also says that a breath specimen is difficult to preserve for later independent analysis, Manual, at 95, so Maryland’s statute specifically provides for the *387licensee to obtain an independent test at the licensee’s discretion. § 10-304(e).
Moreover, it seems likely that the legislature recognized that a blood test is more invasive than a breath test. While the administration of a blood test to determine alcohol concentration is not constitutionally impermissible, see, e.g., Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771-72, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1836, 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 920 (1966); State v. Moon, 291 Md. 463, 473, 436 A.2d 420, 425 (1981), the Supreme Court has recognized the invasiveness of administering a blood test. Such blood tests implicate the Fourth Amendment. In Schmerber, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of using blood tests without a warrant to test blood-alcohol level. 384 U.S. at 771-72, 86 S.Ct. at 1836, 16 L.Ed.2d at 920. The Supreme Court, however, specifically limited that holding to the facts of the case. Id. There, the driver had refused to consent, but the Court upheld the admission of the test results stating that the driver was “not one of the few who on grounds of fear, concern for health, or religious scruple might prefer some other means of testing, such as [a] ‘[B]reathalyzer.’ ” Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 771, 86 S.Ct. at 1836, 16 L.Ed.2d at 920. The Court emphasized: “It bears repeating ... that we reach this judgment only on the facts of the present record. The integrity of an individual’s person is a cherished value of our society. That we today hold that the Constitution does not forbid the States minor intrusions into an individual’s body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits ... intrusions under other conditions.” Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 772, 86 S.Ct. at 1836, 16 L.Ed.2d at 920.
Hyle, 348 Md. at 151-55, 702 A.2d at 764-65 (some internal citations omitted)(footnote omitted) (some alterations in original).10 As indicated, supra, the position of the dissent, if its *388practical consequences are considered, might, and, in my view, probably would, result in significant reduction in the use of Breathalyzer results and a significant increase in the use of blood testing. That would be contrary to what this Court has previously held to be the intent of the Legislature.
The legislative history behind section 10-305 and related statutes clearly reflects Maryland’s preference for a breath test over a blood test when determining alcohol concentration in an alleged alcohol — influenced or intoxicated driver. See Hyle, supra. A breath test has been mandated as the test that a law enforcement officer shall employ except in three specific circumstances, none of which, as I believe and have indicated, exist in the case sub judice.
Petitioner also argues that the police had an affirmative statutory obligation to preserve the scientific evidence of her blood alcohol content. There is no indication that the police officers involved did not preserve the evidence in this case. In fact, the State sought to have the results admitted, but the trial court sustained petitioner’s objection to its admissibility. The police collected evidence of petitioner’s blood alcohol content several times with the intoximeter but percentage readings were not produced. The police preserved the inconclusive results, “0.173 percent,” “insufficient breath” and “interfering substance,” and sought to have them admitted. Appellant objected and they were not admitted. No where in the statutory scheme does it say that the results of the test need to be stated in percentages in order for the test to be complete. The results may be inadmissible (as they were ruled to be in this case), but the testing process is complete.
Petitioner asserts that the State has failed to perform an affirmative statutory duty at the cost of petitioner’s rights and argues that because the police did not produce a test of her blood, when she says she requested it, she was denied due process of law. I again note that the police, under the *389circumstances of this case, had no mandatory duty to provide a blood test. Furthermore, as this Court said in Werkheiser, 299 Md. at 537-38, 474 A.2d at 902-03:
A due process issue was considered by the Supreme Court of Colorado in People v. Culp, 189 Colo. 76, 537 P.2d 746 (1975) (en banc). The court stated:
“We also hold that due process principles do not require the state to offer a chemical test to the defendant. State v. Reyna, [92 Idaho 669, 448 P.2d 762 (1968)]; City of Kettering v. Baker, 40 Ohio App.2d 566, 321 N.E.2d 618 (1974). We quote from Reyna, supra, and adopt the Idaho Supreme Court’s disposition of this argument:
‘... the right to due process of law does not include the right to be given a blood test in all circumstances.
To hold otherwise would be to transform the accused’s right to due process into a power to compel the State to gather in the accused’s behalf what might be exculpatory evidence. In this case, the State produced testimonial evidence of intoxication, but it had no obligation to obtain for appellant what he speculates might have been more scientific evidence of sobriety. The State may not suppress evidence, but it need not gather evidence for the accused.’ ”
Culp, 537 P.2d at 748 [quoting Reyna, 448 P.2d at 767].
We agree with this reasoning and find the situation analogous to other forms of evidence which the state may not have available for trial. For instance, in Eley v. State, 288 Md. 548, 419 A.2d 384 (1980), we were confronted with a criminal case where there was no fingerprint evidence with respect to the escape vehicle. Judge Cole stated for the Court:
“While it is not incumbent upon the State to produce fingerprint evidence to prove guilt, nevertheless, where a better method of identification may be available and the State offers no explanation whatsoever for its failure to come forward with such evidence, it is not unreasonable *390to allow the defendant to call attention to its failure to do so.”
Id. at 554, 419 A.2d at 387. In Spell v. State, 49 Md.App. 323, 431 A.2d 752 (1981), the Court of Special Appeals applied our ruling in Eley to permit comment by defense counsel that the state had deviated from routine and reliable methods of identification — in that instance, a line-up. [Alterations in original.]
When scientific evidence of petitioner’s blood alcohol content is collected, there may be a duty to preserve it, however, as I understand the statutory scheme applicable in this case, there is no affirmative duty that scientific and admissible evidence of petitioner’s blood alcohol content actually be obtained. The preservation of evidence standard is the same, regardless of whether the tests produce percentage results or are inconclusive in that regard. Merely because the tests are inconclusive does not, as I see it, then create a duty on the State to keep gathering additional scientific evidence until admissible scientific evidence is obtained.
As the Court said in State v. Moon, 291 Md. 463, 477, 436 A.2d 420, 427 (1981), the relevant statutes have not been enacted for the protection of the accused rather they are “concerned with the protection of the public.” See Major v. State, 31 Md.App. 590, 591, 358 A.2d 609, 610 (“The General Assembly, mindful of the safety of persons in this State and heedful of the general welfare, has acted to deter a person who has consumed alcohol from driving a vehicle on the highways of Maryland.”), cert. denied sub nom., Flanagan v. State, 278 Md. 722 (1976). In the case sub judice, there has been no denial of due process because tests were taken and the results were available.
The position I ascribe to is supported, I believe, by another statute in this legislative scheme. Section 10-308(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article provides in respect to tests:
The evidence of the analysis does not limit the introduction of other evidence bearing upon whether the defendant *391was intoxicated or whether the defendant was driving while under the influence of alcohol, while so far under the influence of any drug, any combination of drugs, or a combination of one or more drugs and alcohol that the person cannot drive a vehicle safely, or while under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance.
The Court of Special Appeals quoted section 10-308(a) in Major, 31 Md.App. at 595-96, 358 A.2d at 612-13, when it provided:
In the light of these provisions, we are convinced that the Legislature did not intend that evidence of the alcoholic content of a person’s body, obtained through the prescribed chemical tests for intoxication, be a prerequisite of conviction for violation of the crime created by Art. 66 lk, § 11-902.11 Had we any doubt, it would be removed by Courts Art. § 10-308.... If evidence of the chemical analysis does not limit the introduction of other evidence bearing upon whether the defendant was in an intoxicated condition, under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or his driving ability was impaired by the consumption of alcohol, patently, reasonably and logically, such other evidence may be introduced when there is no evidence of a chemical analysis. To adopt a contrary view would be unreasonable and inconsistent with common sense. See Height v. State, 225 Md. 251, 259[, 170 A.2d 212] (1961); Nooe v. City of Baltimore, 28 Md.App. 348, 355[, 345 A.2d 134] (1975). A person accused of committing the offenses proscribed by Code, Art. 66 % § 11-902 could completely thwart any prosecution by refusing to submit to one of the prescribed tests.
We conclude that a person may be convicted of driving a vehicle while in an intoxicated condition or while his driving ability was impaired by the consumption of alcohol in the absence of evidence establishing the alcoholic content of his *392body according to chemical analysis made pursuant to tests prescribed by statute. To put it another way, the introduction of evidence with respect to the alcoholic content in the accused’s body, as shown upon chemical analysis through tests pursuant to Courts Art. §§ 10-302 through 10-309, is not a prerequisite to a conviction of the crimes proscribed by Art. 66 % § ll-902(a) and (b). Conviction may be had on any competent evidence legally sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of the crimes and the criminal agency of the accused.
I agree. Alcohol concentration tests are not a prerequisite to a conviction in the first instance. In the case sub judice, petitioner was arrested, the tests were conducted, and she was convicted, not on the inconclusive breath tests, but on the testimony of Officer Catherman concerning evidence of petitioner’s demeanor during the traffic stop.
The results of these tests were not admissible (although the State sought to introduce them) — that does not make them missing. Nor does it make the machine, operating as it was designed to operate, inoperable or unavailable. The results of the machine’s operation were available. Petitioner objected to their admission. In my view, the State was burdened neither with the duty of continuing breath tests until percentage results were gained nor with the duty to conduct a blood test. If it were so burdened, defendants, as the Court mentioned in Hyle, 348 Md. at 152-53, 702 A.2d at 764-65, and as I indicate earlier in this concurrence, could completely forestall the obtaining of percentage reading results by providing less than full cooperation during the testing period, thus, thwarting a conviction in spite of any other evidence that might be available. This risk is especially high when the first of several tests indicates a high level of intoxication as in the present case. Experienced persons, or persons educated in the manner in which the machines work, could thwart the operation of the machine and then claim the right to a presumption or a court mandated inference, via an instruction, against intoxication.
*393Generally, section 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article does impose a mandatory duty upon officers to obtain a test for alcohol concentration when a detained person consents to the taking of the test. I would reach the first issue presented and hold that such a test need not always produce a result based upon percentages. The fact that the results from the breath tests given to petitioner by the police officers did not provide admissible evidence of intoxication or sobriety, in my view, does not then impose upon the State the additional duty of administering a blood test for alcohol concentration. Simply stated, the results of the Breathalyzer tests are not missing. They may be upon proper objection, not admissible.
In circumstances such as those present in the case at bar, even if a duty to procure a blood test existed, the appropriate remedy, as the majority opinion holds, would be to allow defense counsel to argue an inference that had a blood test been administered, its results would have been favorable to petitioner. As the Court’s opinion points out, defense counsel was afforded the opportunity during closing to argue for an inference, that had a blood test been administered its results would have been favorable to petitioner. I agree with the Court’s opinion that petitioner was entitled to nothing more.
. Any future reference to section 16-205.1 is a reference to Maryland Code (1977, 1999 Repl.Vol., 2000 Cum.Supp.) section 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article. As we discussed, supra, note 1, although petitioner was arrested and charged in 1998, we are citing the current statutes as no relevant substantive changes have occurred since 1998.
. Generally, a test is considered to be two samplings of breath. When the first sample of a test reads ‘‘interfering substance,” a new test is commenced. There were four samplings in the case sub judice in three tests.
. It might be argued that, generally, the first sample of the first test 0.173 might have to have been confirmed by the second sample of the first test in order to be admissible although I am unaware of any such statutory requirement. It is the procedure outlined in the regulations of the State toxicologist that require a second reading. In this case, the samplings' results were marked as State’s Exhibits 4A, 4B, and 4C for identification purposes only. The State began to introduce them into evidence but a timely objection by defense counsel was sustained by the trial court. Apparently the results were kept out because they were believed to be inconclusive, and thus not sufficiently relevant, and the results of the first sample of the first test would be more prejudicial than probative. I do note that the admissibility of such test results are controlled by sections 10-306 and 10-307 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article. There is nothing in the language of that statute, as I read it, which discusses the evidentiary admissibility of results other than those stated in percentages. Section 10-306, in respect to admissibility without the presence of a technician, is framed in terms of “results” of the tests. Section 10-307 speaks to the admissibility of "the amount ... as shown by analysis.”
. If a person is involved in an accident resulting in a fatal or life threatening injury, and an officer believes the person was under the influence of alcohol, the person’s consent is not necessary.
. One inference that can be raised from petitioner’s paraphrased statements to the police when the citations were issued that “these results are not admissible in court.... The result of 1 7 is not admissible in court,” is that petitioner was familiar with the admissibility requirements for Breathalyzer evidence at the time the samplings were taken. The record reflects that in January of 1996, just a year and nine months before her arrest in the case at bar, she was placed on probation before judgment for driving under the influence of alcohol and for a period of time, within a year of her arrest in this case, her driving privileges had been suspended in respect to that prior offense.
. The dissent leaves unanswered what would happen if the person consents to a breath test, withholds breath thereby thwarting the testing process, but then declines to consent to the more invasive procedure of blood sampling.
. This regulation would not appear to prohibit additional consensual testing but it certainly does not require it.
. Hyle was detained in Baltimore City but appealed the suspension of his license in Worcester County.
. In this case, the equipment was present and operating properly — it merely was not providing an admissible percentage reading. This is not, in my view, a case where the equipment, though present, is inoperable. The equipment operated. It just did not produce a percentage reading.
. This Court has had occasion to further discuss the legislative history of sections 10-302 through 10-309. See State v. Loscomb, 291 Md. 424, 435 A.2d 764 (1981) (holding that results of blood test were inadmissi*388ble when officer had blood test administered without the consent of the driver).
. Maryland Code (1957, 1970 Repl.Vol.), Article 66 'h, section 11-902 is a precursor to current section 21-902 of the Transportation Article. Section 11-902 made it unlawful to drive while intoxicated, impaired by alcohol, or under the influence of drugs.