People v. Boscic, 15 N.Y.3d 494 (2010)
Breathalyzer test results are admissible if the prosecution demonstrates that the device was in proper working order at the time of the test, without a strict requirement for calibration every six months.
Summary
This case addresses the admissibility of breathalyzer test results in drunk driving cases. The defendant, Boscic, was convicted of driving while impaired. The County Court reversed, holding that the breathalyzer results were inadmissible because the machine had not been calibrated within six months of the arrest, interpreting People v. Todd as establishing such a requirement. The Court of Appeals reversed, clarifying that People v. Todd does not impose a rigid six-month calibration rule. The admissibility hinges on demonstrating the device’s proper working order at the time of the test. The case was remitted to County Court to determine if the evidence, including the breathalyzer results, was sufficient to support the conviction.
Facts
On November 3, 2007, a police officer observed Boscic’s minivan parked illegally. The officer observed Boscic exhibiting signs of intoxication (alcohol on breath, glassy eyes, slurred speech). Boscic admitted to drinking three beers. Field sobriety tests were poorly performed, leading to Boscic’s arrest. A breathalyzer test (BAG DataMaster) at the sheriff’s office registered a blood alcohol level of .07%. The DataMaster had been calibrated approximately six months and three weeks before the test.
Procedural History
Boscic was convicted in Bethel Justice Court. Sullivan County Court reversed the conviction, ruling the breathalyzer results inadmissible due to non-compliance with a purported six-month calibration rule derived from People v. Todd, and that the remaining evidence was insufficient. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether People v. Todd established a per se rule requiring breath-alcohol detection devices to be calibrated at least every six months for test results to be admissible at trial?
Holding
No, because People v. Todd does not establish a rigid six-month calibration rule. The key requirement is demonstrating that the breathalyzer device was in proper working order when the test was administered.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals clarified its prior holding in People v. Todd. The Court emphasized that the Todd decision was based on the totality of the circumstances presented in that case, specifically that “[t]he People failed to establish that the breathalyzer apparatus had been timely calibrated” and that “[i]t was incumbent upon the District Attorney to show that the machine was in proper working order” (38 N.Y.2d at 756). The Court noted that post-Todd decisions have consistently focused on whether the instrument was in “proper working order” at the time of the test (People v. Gower, 42 NY2d 117, 120 [1977]). The Court recognized advancements in breath-alcohol detection technology since Todd was decided. Modern devices utilize scientific methods substantially different from earlier generations. New York State Department of Health (DOH) regulations require calibration “at a frequency as recommended by the device manufacturer” but not less than once a year (10 NYCRR 59.4 [c]). The certificate attesting to calibration slightly more than six months before the arrest was a sufficient predicate to admit the DataMaster results. The admissibility of breath-alcohol analysis results depends on demonstrating that the device was in “proper working order” (People v Freeland, 68 NY2d at 700). The Court remitted the case to the County Court to determine the legal sufficiency of the evidence.