State of New Jersey v. Jane H. Chun, et al. (A-96-06)

Argued April 5, 2007
Re-argued January 7, 2008 –- Decided March 17, 2008

Alcotest Reliable Subject to Numerous Procedural
Safeguards - State v. Chun

Link to full text of decision at bottom of page.


[3/17/08 – 12:49 pm] This morning, the New Jersey Supreme Court released
its long-awaited opinion in the Alcotest case captioned State v. Chun. In
a 131-page, unanimous opinion written by Justice Hoens, the Court ruled
that the Alcotest 7110 is a scientifically reliable instrument for
determining the blood-alcohol concentration of living human beings.
Further, subject to a large number of procedural safeguards, the Alcotest
can be utilized in the prosecution of intoxicated operators of motor
vehicles in New Jersey courts. The specific technical procedures and
safeguards to be utilized in Alcotest cases are set forth at the
conclusion of the opinion in a comprehensive Court Order.

Among the many findings and conclusions of the Supreme Court are the
following:
 
1.    While a minimum breath sample of 1.5 li ters of air is appropriate
for most subjects, women over 60 years of age are only required to provide
a sample of 1.2 liters of air.
2.    There will be no requirement that the state install
breath-temperature sensors on the Alcotest instruments now in use.
3.    Admissibility of Alcotest results are subject to the same standards
that were mandated in Romano v. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66 (1983); that is two
tests that are within 0.01% of each other. The instrument will have to be
re-programmed to provide for this standard. Until that time, the Court
provides a form in an appendix to the opinion that can be used to
calculate whether the breath-test results are within the required
tolerance.
4.    As recommended by Judge King in his factual findings, the Alcotest
instruments in use should be re-examined and recertified by the State
twice per year.
5.    The alcohol influ ence report is admissible in evidence and is
non-testimonial within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington.
6.    There are twelve documents that must be provided by the State in
discovery in every Alcotest prosecution. The precise nature of these
documents and their contents are listed in the opinion and set forth in
the Court’s order.
7.    The manufacturer of the Alcotest must provide training at a
reasonable price to the New Jersey defense bar on the operation of the
Alcotest.
8.    The manufacturer must make public any future revisions to the
software that runs the Alcotest through the State Bar Assoc.
9.    The Chun “stay order” from January 2006 is now vacated and pending
cases are to be resolved in conformity with the Court’s order at the end
of the case.
10.  The State must establish an on-going Alcotest result database that will be available to the defense bar.
 
A copy of State v. Chun and the relate Order and Appendix is attached to
this Muni-mail

Click here for the complete ruling in State of New Jersey v. Jane H. Chun, et al. (A-96-06) in PDF format.