People v. дорогa, 21 N.Y.2d 378 (1968)

The admissibility of blood alcohol test results in a prosecution for driving while intoxicated does not depend on proof of police compliance with internal rules and regulations regarding the administration of such tests, provided the reliability of the test is otherwise established.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that the prosecution was not required to prove police compliance with internal regulations for administering blood alcohol tests to admit the test results as evidence in a DWI case. The court reasoned that the statute’s purpose in requiring such regulations was to ensure fairness in the selection and administration of tests, not to govern the admissibility of scientific evidence. As long as the reliability of the blood test is proven through proper scientific and technological standards, the absence of proof of police regulations is irrelevant to the admissibility of the test results. The court reversed the County Court’s order, which had overturned the defendant’s conviction based on the failure to prove compliance with these regulations.

Facts

The defendant was convicted in a Court of Special Sessions for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The conviction was based, in part, on the results of a blood alcohol test. The arresting State Trooper, the physician who drew the blood sample, and the laboratory technician who analyzed it all testified at trial. The defense did not challenge the procedures used to take or test the blood, nor did they dispute the reliability of the test results. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to provide documentary proof of the Division of State Police Rules and Regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

Procedural History

The Court of Special Sessions convicted the defendant. The Allegany County Court reversed the judgment, finding that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with police rules and regulations regarding blood alcohol tests. The People appealed the County Court’s order to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the results of a blood alcohol test are inadmissible in a prosecution for driving while intoxicated if the prosecution fails to prove the content of, and police compliance with, the rules and regulations established by the police force regarding the administration of such tests.

Holding

No, because the admissibility of blood alcohol test results depends on the reliability of the test itself, not on proof of police compliance with internal regulations regarding the test’s administration, as long as there is no substantial question about the propriety of the test or the validity of the consent.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the purpose of requiring police rules and regulations for blood alcohol tests was to ensure fair treatment for the accused in the selection and administration of the test and to clarify that the police, not the accused, would select the type of test. The court stated that these regulations do not directly bear on the substantive results of the test. The reliability of the test is determinable by medical and scientific standards, not by specific police regulations. The court quoted People v. Fogerty, 18 N.Y.2d 664, 666, stating, “The failure to file, in a public office, rules governing the tests does not affect the admissibility in evidence of the results of the tests if found by the court to be intrinsically accurate and reliable.” The court emphasized that if the taking, handling, and testing of the blood are proven reliable, the content and compliance with departmental rules become irrelevant. The court reviewed the legislative history of the statute and concluded that the rule-making requirement aimed to protect drivers’ rights against arbitrary police action, not to dictate evidentiary standards for test results. The court observed that section 1192(3) states that “the court may admit evidence of the amount of alcohol in the defendant’s blood…” without explicitly mandating additional evidentiary preconditions beyond general evidentiary rules for scientific proof. Thus, the County Court’s reversal was in error.