difference in opinion among experts on the reliability of Vermont’s DMT machines and the effectiveness of the DOH’s maintenance procedures.” It is important, however, that defendants’ allegations were aimed at attacking the functioning of the DOH alcohol program gen ulative as applied to the functioning of the DMT machines in their particular cases, they did not present an issue of fact pertinent to the legal question of the test results’ admissibility. Therefore, the court properly found an evidentiary hearing unnecessary, noting that the development of evidence at trial regarding the machine’s reliability would provide a sufficient opportunity for the “adversary system to uncover, recognize, and take due account of the DOH’s shortcomings.” Cf. Senecal, 145 Vt. at 561, 497 A.2d at 353 (<HOLDING>). B. ¶ 16. Of course, our conclusion that the
holding that it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress holding that on review of a motion to suppress the appellate court is to give deference to a trial courts factual findings but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo holding that a legal conclusion on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo holding that this court has jurisdiction to review the legal issues concerning whether the factual disputes a are genuine and b concern material facts holding that factual disputes regarding circumstances of traffic stop were pertinent to deciding legal issues in motion to suppress and thus hearing was necessary