NJ Supreme Court Holds New Alcotest DWI - Breath Testing Machine Results Admissible

The Supreme Court on March 17, 2008 adopted, asmeasurements by applying a corrective formula. In
modified, the reports and recommendations ofpending prosecutions, and in future prosecutions
Special Master Judge King. This landmark decisionbased on tests conducted prior to the
changes the prosecution of DWI cases in Newimplementation of the Court's directives, the State
Jersey forever. Subject to certain conditions, themust review all AIRs that include three tests,
Court holds that the Alcotest is scientifically reliableperform the calculations to identify the correct BAC
and that its results are admissible in drunk drivingin accordance with the corrective formula, and
prosecutions. State v. Chun 194 NJ 54 3-17-08provide that data to the court. The calculations must
The Supreme Court held:be made a part of the evidence in any prosecution
1. There is sufficient credible evidence to support theto facilitate appellate review.
continued use of a 2100 to 1 blood/breath alcohol8. The Supreme Court found adequate support in the
ratio to estimate BAC from a breath sample. Therecord that catastrophic error detection should be
overwhelming evidence demonstrates that use ofre-enabled in the Alcotest. This detection will allow
this ratio tends to underestimate the actual BAC inthe machine to recognize catastrophic errors and
the vast majority of persons whose breath is tested.respond by shutting down. There is no basis for the
Although there may be a small number of individualsCourt to conclude that the lack of catastrophic error
who are disadvantaged by a device that uses thedetection could result in an inaccurate AIR in any
2100 to 1 blood/breath ratio, there is sound scientificpending prosecution.
support for its continued utilization.9. The Supreme Court found the overall programming
2. The four criteria used by the device to identify astyle and design of the source code to be
valid breath sample are, with one modification,acceptable. The exhaustive review undertaken in this
appropriate. The Court adopts the recommendationcase revealed few actual errors or issues within the
that the minimum breath volume requirement shouldsource code. There being no evidence in the record
be lowered, for women over sixty years of agethat any other asserted shortcomings are more than
only, from 1.5 liters to 1.2 liters and concludes thatstylistic or theoretical challenges, the Court declines to
this modification does not violate equal protectionrequire any specific programming standards at this
rights. Regardless of minimum breath requirements,time.
no test will be accepted by the machine until the10. In future revisions to the Alcotest software, The
infrared measurement plateaus, which only occursSupreme Court ruled the State must: have the
when a suspect is expelling deep lung air.Alcotest software locked so that only the
Further, while selectively lowering the breath volumemanufacturer can make revisions to the source code;
requirement will create a different level at whichhave the software revised so that the Alcotest
women over sixty may be charged with refusal, theidentifies and prints the software version that it is
record demonstrates that this group, and only thisutilizing on each AIR; and give detailed notice
group, may not have the physiological capability ofconsistent with due process to the public and the
providing a larger sample. In pending prosecutions,New Jersey State Bar Association of any future
and in future prosecutions based on tests conductedrevisions.
prior to the implementation of the Court's directives,11. The Supreme Court ruled Draeger must make
an Alcotest AIR with an insufficient volume errorAlcotest training, comparable to that provided to the
message may not be used as evidence of refusalState, available to licensed New Jersey attorneys and
against women over the age of sixty, unless theytheir experts at reasonable times and locations within
also provided another sample of at least 1.5 liters.New Jersey and at a reasonable cost.
3. The Supreme Court declined to adopt the12. The Supreme Court ruled the twelve foundational
recommendation that a breath temperature sensordocuments identified by the Special Master must be
be added to the Alcotest, concluding that this deviceprovided during discovery in all matters. The operator
is both unnecessary and impractical. The recordof the device shall be available to testify and shall
includes scant evidence of a correlation betweenproduce evidence of his qualifications to operate the
breath temperature and increased breath alcoholdevice. The following foundational documents,
concentration, and no evidence that the theoreticalevidencing the good working order of the machine,
increase in breath alcohol concentration wouldshall be admitted into evidence in prosecutions based
translate into an inaccurately elevated BAC. Further,on Alcotest breath testing results: the most recent
any potential effect is ameliorated by the 2100 to 1calibration report, including control tests, linearity
blood/breath ratio and by use of truncated, rathertests, and the credentials of the coordinator who
than rounded, results, both of which serve toperformed the calibration; the most recent new
underestimate results. Requiring the addition of astandard solution report prior to a defendant's test;
breath temperature sensor would also present anand the certificate of analysis of the 0.10 simulator
unreasonable maintenance burden on New Jersey'ssolution used in a defendant's control tests. These
breath testing program.foundational documents are not "testimonial," as
4. A tolerance range of an absolute 0.01 percent (plusdefined by the United States Supreme Court in
or minus 0.005 percent from the mean) BACCrawford v. Washington and its progeny. In so
standard, coupled with the use of a like percentageholding, the Court aligns itself with the majority of
range of tolerance expressed as five percent plus orother courts, which have found that such documents
minus deviation from the mean, is both scientificallyare business records, which do not implicate the
appropriate and consistent with the intention of theConfrontation Clause.
Legislature in adopting per se limits. The device must13. The Supreme Court ruled the AIR itself, a
therefore be reprogrammed to comply with this"statement" of a machine, is not testimonial under
standard. In pending prosecutions, and in futureCrawford because it does not implicate Crawford's
prosecutions based on tests conducted prior to thecore concerns -- it is not a report of a past event,
implementation of the Court's directives, in which thegiven in response to police interrogation, with the
AIR reports a BAC obtained using a doubledpurpose of establishing evidence that a defendant
tolerance range, the reported breath samples mustcommitted an offense. Although the AIR is not
be reviewed to determine whether the results meettestimonial evidence, the Court nevertheless
this tolerance range. Any AIR that does not includemandates various safeguards to protect a
two valid tests within tolerance under this standarddefendant's due process rights: the opportunity to
cannot be deemed to be sufficiently scientificallycross-examine the operator of the Alcotest, the
reliable to be admissible and shall not be admitted intoroutine production of all foundational documents in
evidence as proof of a per se violation.discovery, and the admission of the core foundational
5. The Alcotest's use of the fuel cell "drift" algorithmdocuments into evidence at trial.
does not undermine its reliability. Scientific evidenceThe Court contemporaneously issued an Order
demonstrates that fuel cells begin to age as soon asvacating its January 10, 2006, stay of drunk driving
they are put into service, and will eventually causeprosecutions, appeals, and sentencing, which shall
the Alcotest's electric chemical test to underestimateproceed in accordance with the directives set forth
BAC. While there may be other means totherein.
compensate for this "drift," those means would not,The full 130 page opinion will be available at
in the end, be any more advantageous toKenneth Vercammen is the 2008 Municipal Court
defendants than the minor upward adjustment thatAttorney of the Year by the Middlesex County Bar
the algorithm effects. However, the Court adoptsAssociation. He was selected one of only three
the Special Master's recommendation that theattorneys as a Super Lawyer 2008 in NJ Monthly in
devices be recalibratedsemi-annually instead ofthe Criminal - DWI category. Kenneth Vercammen
annually. A semi-annual calibration is consistent withwas the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of
the manufacturer's recommendations and provides athe Year and past president of the Middlesex County
useful safeguard by affording a more regularMunicipal Prosecutor's Association.(( He is the past
opportunity to evaluate and replace aging fuel cellschair of the NJ State Bar Association Municipal Court
6. The Supreme Court concluded that the Alcotest'sSection. He is the Deputy chair of the ABA Criminal
"weighted averaging" algorithm is an appropriateLaw committee, GP Division.
calculation that results in a more accurate infraredKENNETH VERCAMMEN ATTORNEY AT LAW
measurement. It gives greater weight to the breath2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817
that, inevitably, includes the deepest air drawn from732-572-0500
the lungs. It therefore focuses the analysis on theNJ LAWS LEGAL WEBSITE:
portion of the breath sample that most accuratelyCriminal website
represents the subject's BACKenneth Vercammen was selected one of only three
7. The buffer overflow error is a real error in theattorneys as a Super Lawyer 2007-2008 in NJ
programming that may cause the Alcotest to reportMonthly in the Criminal - DWI. Kenneth Vercammen
incorrect results in situations involving a third breathwas the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of
sample, which is taken only when the measurementsthe Year and past president of the Middlesex County
from the first two tests are not in tolerance. TheMunicipal Prosecutor's Association.(( He is the past
buffer overflow programming error, which must bechair of the NJ State Bar Association Municipal Court
corrected, affects only the final BAC result reportedSection. He is the Deputy chair of the ABA Criminal
on the AIR. Because the infrared and electricLaw committee, GP Division.
chemical measurements for all of the test samplesKENNETH VERCAMMEN ATTORNEY AT LAW
are accurately reported on the AIR, the correct BAC2053 Woodbridge Ave.
value can, and must, be computed from those