People v. Moser, 70 N.Y.2d 476 (1987)

The “personal supervision” requirement of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(7)(a) for blood alcohol tests does not require the supervising physician to be physically present and observing the procedure when a laboratory technician draws the blood sample.

Summary

This case clarifies the meaning of “personal supervision” under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(7)(a) regarding blood alcohol tests. The Court of Appeals held that a physician need not be physically present and observing when a lab technician draws blood. It is sufficient if the physician directs and supervises activities in the emergency room, authorizes the test, and is available for inquiries and emergencies. This interpretation balances the need for medical oversight with the statute’s purpose of easing the process of obtaining blood alcohol tests.

Facts

The defendant was arrested and a blood sample was taken by a lab technician to determine its alcohol content. A physician in charge of the emergency room authorized the taking of the sample, directing and supervising all activities. The physician was not physically present, observing the technician draw the blood.

Procedural History

The City Court found that the physician personally supervised the procedure within the meaning of the statute and admitted the blood alcohol test results. County Court reversed, concluding the statute required the physician’s physical presence. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(7)(a) requires a physician to be physically present, observing the procedure, when a laboratory technician draws a blood sample for the purposes of conducting a test to determine its alcoholic or drug content.

Holding

No, because the statute’s purpose is to make blood alcohol and drug content tests easier to obtain, and requiring the physician’s physical presence would undermine that purpose. The physician’s authorization and availability to respond to inquiries and emergencies sufficiently addresses the supervision requirement.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the County Court’s interpretation conflicted with the statute’s intent. The 1969 amendment aimed to enlarge the class of authorized persons to draw blood, easing the process of obtaining tests. Requiring the physician to stand by the technician during the procedure would negate the benefit of allowing technicians to draw blood in the first place. The court emphasized that the physician’s authorization of the test, implying a medical judgment that it poses no undue risk to the patient, and their availability for inquiries and potential emergencies, sufficiently addresses the concerns underlying the supervision requirement.

The Court stated that “the personal supervision of a physician is an important safeguard for the health of the suspects to be tested, it would be anomalous in light of the purposes of the amendment to require the physician to put his other duties aside to watch the technician perform the procedure. If that were the requirement, there would be no reason to allow the technician to take the sample in the first place.”