e.g., Kennedy v. Dir. of Rev., 73 S.W.3d 85, 87 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002) (con.1uding that there were sufficient facts to support court’s finding that there was an insufficient foundation for breath test results after officer used machine that had returned an error message), overruled on other grounds by Verdoorn v. Dir of Rev., 119 S.W.3d 543 (Mo. 2003). The Missouri statute differs from the Vermont statute, however, in that it in.1udes a provision requiring an operator to cease using a machine that is not functioning properly. See id. 5 We have held that a disparity in two test results does not make the results inadmissible in at least two nonprecedential three-justice memorandum decisions. See State v. Howe, Nos. 2006-429, 2006-432, 2007 WL 5313288, at *3 (Vt. Mar. 28, 2007) (unpub. mem.) (<HOLDING>); State v. Springer, Nos. 2006-433, 2006-434,
holding that our liberal rules of notice pleading do not require that specific evidentiary detail be alleged in the complaint holding that department of health rules do not require agreement between two successive results recognizing the 48hour standard as a department of health regulation holding that hiring of only two mental health experts was not deficient holding that where department of transportation regulations did not require department officials to enforce vehicle regulations the departments decision not to do so was discretionary