New York Law Review

Tag: Breathalyzer Evidence

  • People v. Rogers, 73 N.Y.2d 878 (1988): Admissibility of Breathalyzer Test Results and Authentication Certificates

    People v. Rogers, 73 N.Y.2d 878 (1988)

    An authentication certificate for breathalyzer test results is admissible as long as it certifies that the underlying tests were recorded at or near the time they were performed, regardless of when the certificate itself was dated.

    Summary

    This case addresses the admissibility of breathalyzer test results in a DWI prosecution. The County Court suppressed the breathalyzer evidence because the authentication certificate was dated after the tests were performed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the critical factor for admissibility is whether the certificate attests that the underlying tests were recorded contemporaneously with their performance, not the date of the certificate itself. This case clarifies the requirements for authenticating business records under CPLR 4518(c) in the context of DWI prosecutions.

    Facts

    The defendant, Rogers, was charged with driving while intoxicated. The prosecution sought to introduce breathalyzer test results as evidence of his intoxication. The authentication certificate for the breathalyzer machine’s working order was dated some time after the calibration tests were conducted on the machine and simulator solution.

    Procedural History

    The Chautauqua County Court ruled the breathalyzer evidence inadmissible, finding the authentication certificate improperly dated. The People appealed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the County Court’s order and remitted the case back to that court for a review of the facts consistent with their memorandum.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an authentication certificate for breathalyzer test results is inadmissible solely because the certificate’s date is later than the date the breathalyzer tests were performed.

    Holding

    No, because the relevant inquiry is whether the authentication certificate attests that the recordation of the underlying tests occurred at or near the time the tests were performed. The date of the certificate itself is not determinative of admissibility.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on CPLR 4518(c) and its prior holding in People v. Mertz, 68 N.Y.2d 136 (1986). The court emphasized that the purpose of the authentication certificate is to replace the need for a live witness to testify about the business records. The key requirement is that the certificate must state that the documents it authenticates were produced in the normal course of business at or near the time of the recorded event. The court reasoned that as long as the authenticating certificates properly stated that the tests performed on the breathalyzer and simulator solution occurred at or near the time these tests were performed, then the fact that the authenticating certificates were dated from 8 to 36 days after the tests were performed is irrelevant. The court noted, “Where a ‘certification or authentication’ replaces the testimony of a live witness, pursuant to CPLR 4518 (c), it must state that the documents that it authenticates were produced in the normal course of business at or near the time that the act, transaction, occurrence or event recorded in those documents occurred. The authenticating certificate itself need not be dated or produced at or near the date of the act, transaction, occurrence or event.” This decision underscores the importance of contemporaneous record-keeping in the context of business records and the use of authentication certificates to streamline the admission of such records in court. The focus is on the reliability of the underlying record, not the timing of the authentication.

  • People v. Jones, 43 N.Y.2d 110 (1977): Admissibility of Breathalyzer Test Certificates

    People v. Jones, 43 N.Y.2d 110 (1977)

    Certificates offered to establish the proper functioning of breathalyzer equipment and the accuracy of chemical solutions used in the tests are inadmissible hearsay unless they fall within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, such as the business records exception.

    Summary

    This case addresses the admissibility of certificates used to demonstrate the proper functioning of breathalyzer equipment and the accuracy of the chemical solutions utilized in breathalyzer tests. The Court of Appeals held that these certificates, offered to lay a foundation for breathalyzer test results, were inadmissible hearsay because they did not qualify as business records under CPLR 4518 or any other hearsay exception. The court suggested that establishing a standardized testing procedure with contemporaneous record-keeping could satisfy CPLR 4518. The court also noted that with the widespread use and demonstrated reliability of breathalyzers, a relaxation of the initial rigorous foundational requirements may be appropriate, shifting the focus to the persuasive weight of the evidence.

    Facts

    The prosecution sought to introduce certificates to show that breathalyzer equipment was in proper working order and that the ampoules used contained properly compounded chemicals. These certificates, signed by various individuals from the State Police scientific laboratory, the Stiefel Research Institute, and Wilson Memorial Hospital, certified the results of analyses of ampoules and simulator solutions. The certificates were offered to support the admissibility of breathalyzer test results in drunk driving cases.

    Procedural History

    The County Court, Broome County, convicted the defendants of violating subdivision 2 of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The defendants appealed, arguing that the certificates used to lay the foundation for the breathalyzer test results were inadmissible. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case to determine the admissibility of these certificates.

    Issue(s)

    Whether certificates offered to show that breathalyzer equipment was in proper working order and that the ampoules used contained properly compounded chemicals are admissible as evidence to lay a foundation for the introduction of breathalyzer test results.

    Holding

    No, because the certificates did not fall within the scope of CPLR 4518 (the business records exception to the hearsay rule), nor did they otherwise fall within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the certificates were inadmissible hearsay because their source was not shown to be records made in the regular course of business of the issuing agencies, as required by CPLR 4518. The Court emphasized that the certificates did not fall within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. To meet the requirements of CPLR 4518, the Court suggested that testing agencies or corporations establish standardized testing procedures with contemporaneous record-keeping, including details such as date, tester, material tested, tests conducted, and results. Such records would then qualify as business records. The Court also addressed the evolving understanding and acceptance of breathalyzer technology, suggesting that a relaxation of the initial rigorous foundational requirements may be appropriate. The Court stated: “Based on a wealth of practical experience greater dependence can now properly be placed on according full opportunity, through pretrial discovery and other means, to test and challenge the probative worth of the evidence. Thus, emphasis may be shifted from technical issues of admissibility of evidence to means for measuring its persuasive weight.” However, the Court declined to set precise guidelines, noting that the requirements in each case would depend on its particular circumstances. The court did not address whether authentication of certificates of analysis of ampoules by the Director of the New York State Police Scientific Laboratory would suffice under CPLR 4518(c), leaving resolution of that issue for a future case with a more fully developed record.