New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Garneau

  • People v. Garneau, 34 N.Y.3d 984 (2020): Admissibility of Electronic Records and the Scope of CPLR 4539(b)

    People v. Garneau, 34 N.Y.3d 984 (2020)

    CPLR 4539(b) does not apply to electronic records originally created in that format, and such records are governed by CPLR 4518(a).

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of electronic records, specifically in the context of a breathalyzer test in a DWI case. The court held that CPLR 4539(b), which requires specific authentication for reproductions of documents, does not apply to records initially created in an electronic format. Instead, such records are governed by CPLR 4518(a), which provides for the admissibility of electronic records and allows the court to consider the method of storage when determining their accuracy. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to admit records of simulator solution testing based on state agency certifications.

    Facts

    During a trial for driving while intoxicated, the defendant objected to the admission of records related to the simulator solution used during the breath test. The defendant argued that the certifications accompanying the records did not comply with CPLR 4539(b), as they lacked verification that the records could not be tampered with. The trial court admitted the exhibit into evidence. The County Court agreed that CPLR 4539 (b) does not apply to documents, such as the record of simulator solution testing, that were originally created in electronic form.

    Procedural History

    The trial court admitted the challenged evidence. The County Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the County Court’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether CPLR 4539(b) applies to electronic records originally created in that format, specifically the record of simulator solution testing.

    2. Whether the applicable statute for the record of simulator solution testing and other related records is CPLR 4518(a).

    Holding

    1. No, CPLR 4539(b) does not apply to electronic records that were originally created electronically.

    2. Yes, CPLR 4518(a) is the applicable statute for electronic records and the attached state agency certifications are admissible.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that CPLR 4539(b) pertains to reproductions of hard-copy documents that have been scanned to create a digital image, and then a “reproduction” of the digital image. Since the records in question were created electronically, CPLR 4539(b) does not apply. The court cited that CPLR 4539(b) requires an authentication “by competent testimony or affidavit” to include information about “the manner or method by which tampering or degradation of the reproduction is prevented” when “[a] reproduction [is] created by any process which stores an image.”

    The court held that CPLR 4518(a) governs the admissibility of electronic records. CPLR 4518(a) states that “an electronic record . . . shall be admissible in a tangible exhibit that is a true and accurate representation of such electronic record.” The court emphasized that the Legislature amended CPLR 4518(a) specifically because CPLR 4539(b) was deemed inapplicable to documents created electronically. The court relied on the 2002 amendment to CPLR 4518(a), noting that it provides that the court “may consider the method or manner by which the electronic record was stored, maintained or retrieved in determining whether the exhibit is a true and accurate representation of such electronic record,” but “[a]ll other circumstances of the making of the memorandum or record . . . may be proved to affect its weight,” and “shall not affect its admissibility.”

    Practical Implications

    This case clarifies the distinction between the admissibility of scanned images of paper documents and records that originate in electronic form. Attorneys should be prepared to differentiate between the two types of records and understand which statutes govern their admissibility. For electronic records, CPLR 4518(a) is the controlling authority, and its requirements, including the consideration of storage methods, must be met. This decision reinforces the trend of recognizing the validity and reliability of electronic records in legal proceedings, aligning with contemporary business practices. When dealing with electronic evidence, attorneys should focus on establishing the accuracy and authenticity of the electronic record, including the manner of its creation, storage, and maintenance. The ruling also emphasizes the importance of state agency certifications in establishing the reliability of technical records.