New York Law Review

Tag: DWI Evidence

  • People v. Alvarez, 70 N.Y.2d 375 (1987): Foundation Required for Breathalyzer Test Results

    People v. Alvarez, 70 N.Y.2d 375 (1987)

    To admit breathalyzer test results in a Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 prosecution, the prosecution must present evidence allowing a reasonable fact-finder to conclude the testing device was in proper working order and that the chemicals used were of the proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions.

    Summary

    Alvarez was convicted of driving while intoxicated. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the breathalyzer test results were improperly admitted. The Court found the prosecution failed to establish a proper foundation for the breathalyzer results by not presenting any evidence the machine was functioning accurately, or the chemicals were properly constituted. Proof the operator was certified or that the defendant appeared intoxicated was insufficient. The case clarifies foundational requirements for admitting breathalyzer evidence, emphasizing the need to prove the machine’s accuracy, not just the operator’s certification or the defendant’s apparent intoxication.

    Facts

    The defendant, Alvarez, was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192. At trial, the prosecution introduced breathalyzer test results to establish the defendant’s blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit. The prosecution offered proof that the test operator was certified. The arresting officers testified as to the defendant’s behavior and field sobriety test results.

    Procedural History

    The trial court admitted the breathalyzer test results. The defendant was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the prosecution laid a sufficient foundation for the admission of breathalyzer test results by offering proof that the test operator was certified and presenting observations of the arresting officers and field sobriety test results, without offering any evidence the breathalyzer machine was in proper working order or that properly constituted chemicals were used.

    Holding

    No, because the People must introduce evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the testing device was in proper working order and that the chemicals used in conducting the test were of the proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that admitting breathalyzer results requires a foundational showing that the testing device was functioning accurately. Citing prior case law, the Court reiterated the necessity of demonstrating both the machine’s proper working order and the appropriate constitution of the chemicals used. Proof of the operator’s certification, while relevant to whether the test was properly administered, does not establish the machine’s accuracy. The Court noted that “proof that the test operator was certified by the Health Department to conduct breathalyzer tests, while permitting the inference that the test was properly given (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [9]; see, People v Mertz, 68 NY2d 136) is not probative of the distinct foundational requirement concerning the accuracy of the machine.” Similarly, observations of the defendant’s intoxication, while relevant to whether the defendant was impaired, are not probative of the breathalyzer’s accuracy in measuring blood alcohol content. The Court concluded that, lacking any evidence supporting the breathalyzer’s accuracy, the test results were inadmissible, warranting a new trial. The Court explicitly declined to define the exact nature or quantity of proof required, as the record was completely devoid of such evidence.

  • 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.