subject: Nj Law Update - Alcotest Data Downloads Are Discoverable - 2010 [print this page] NJ DWI Alcotest Data Downloads Are Discoverable
On August 6, 2006, Joseph Maricic was arrested for driving while intoxicated, speeding and making an illegal U-turn in NJ. During discovery, the defense requested:
1) Downloaded Alcotest results from the date of the last calibration of the device until Defendant's breath tests
2) the calculations for Defendant's two breath samples
3) any documentation relating to the repairs of the breathalyzer
4) information whether the fuel cell drift algorithm has been implemented since the breathalyzer was last calibrated.
The NJ municipal court judge granted only the second request for discovery and denied the rest without specifying the reasons for the court's decision.
After preserving the issue for appeal, Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charge of NJ DWI and the other charges were dismissed.
At the Law Division appeal level, the judge enforced the Defendant's conditional guilty plea by reasoning that the requested documents were not discoverable pursuant to the seminal case of State v. Chun nor were they "otherwise relevant" under the NJ discovery rules.
The Defendant again appealed the denial of discovery requests seeking the Alcotest Data Downloads which contained his breath test results and the Alcotest repair records.
The Appellate Division reversed and remanded with the reasoning that Defendant's discovery requests for the Alcotest Data Downloads which contained his breath and Alcotest repair records were "relevant" under the discovery rules and State v. Chun.
The appellate court first found that the discovery request number three, regarding the Alcotest repair records was relevant by pointing to its decision in State v. Ford, which held that "[a]lthough the presumption of reliability [of the breathalyzers] is irrefutable once the State establishes certain facts, inquiry regarding these facts is extremely material." The appellate court also pointed to the language from State v. Chun where the NJ Supreme Court recommended that the State adopt protocol procedures for maintaining the repair logs and records to defendants as they are becoming potentially relevant.
Next the appellate court found that the discovery request number one, regarding the downloaded Alcotest results data from the date of the machine's last calibration, was made relevant in State v. Chun. The NJ Supreme Court held that the state must "create and maintain a centralized statewide database, comprised of downloaded Alcotest results, and shall make the data ... available to defendants...." The appellate court concluded that the documents were foundational documents subject to discovery.
