regarding whether Wilcox was told not to take Zantac and on the possibility of false-positive readings. However, we agree with Wilcox’s argument that the State did not establish that proper procedures were followed to ensure accurate test results. Even if the temperature of the urine sample was somehow within protocol, there was a lack of proof regarding the pH level, and the testing instructions directed that a sample not within a prescribed pH range should be suspected of adulteration. A drug sample that has been handled and tested in an unreliable manner cannot yield a reliable result that will enable a trier-of-fact to determine that it is more likely than not that a person used a controlled substance. See, e.g., City of Little Rock v. Hudson, 366 Ark. 415, 236 S.W.3d 509 (2006) (<HOLDING>). We hold that the trial court’s finding that
holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that evidence supported the trial courts finding that breathalyzer results were not reliable where the hospital attendant failed to ask whether the firefighter had been eating mints containing sorbitol a form of alcohol holding that a trial courts finding of a fraudulent lien must be supported by competent evidence holding breathalyzer scientifically reliable holding that fouryearold childs presence in familiar location where child had previously received medical care supported trial courts finding that statements were reliable