New Jersey Supreme Court Rules on DWI Defendants’ Rights to Tainted Alcotest Evidence

New Jersey’s driving while intoxicated (DWI) law requires the state to prove that a person was impaired by alcohol or drugs while driving or attempting to drive. Police use breath testing to measure a DWI suspect’s blood alcohol content (BAC). Anyone driving on public roads in New Jersey has given their implied consent to submit to breath testing. Police and prosecutors must demonstrate that the devices used to test breath samples for BAC are in good working order. Nearly ten years ago, news broke that a former State Police sergeant had falsified maintenance and calibration records for Alcotest devices in five counties, affecting more than 20,000 DWI cases. That case is still affecting DWI cases today, as shown by a 2024 New Jersey Supreme Court decision in which a defendant challenged the use of a prior DWI conviction to enhance his sentence. The court discussed what evidence the state must present to prove that a prior conviction is not one of the 20,000 with tainted evidence.

In 2008, our firm was involved in a case before the New Jersey Supreme Court, State v. Chun, which addressed the use of the Alcotest device in DWI investigations. The court ruled that the Alcotest produces reliable results as long as it receives regular maintenance and calibration. It established procedures for proving that police departments have kept the devices in good repair. Defendants can request this evidence from prosecutors. Failure to maintain a device or to produce the required documentation can result in a court throwing out the BAC results.

The system established in State v. Chun works well enough, assuming that the police keep accurate records of Alcotest maintenance. In 2016, however, news emerged that a State Police sergeant responsible for maintaining numerous devices had failed to perform the necessary calibrations and had falsified records. The New Jersey Supreme Court appointed a special master to review how this affected the reliability of Alcotest results in the counties with inaccurate or falsified records.

The special master found serious doubts about the Alcotest evidence from those counties during the relevant time period, which extended from late 2008 to early 2016. In 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the special master’s report in State v. Cassidy.

The 2024 New Jersey Supreme Court decision arose from a 2018 DWI charge. The defendant had a prior conviction from 2012. He argued that the municipal court should disregard the prior conviction because prosecutors did not prove that it was not among the thousands of cases affected by the sergeant’s misconduct. The court did not accept this argument and convicted him as a second DWI offender.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction but vacated the enhanced second-offense sentence. It held that prosecutors needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sergeant’s misconduct did not affect the earlier case. The state supreme court affirmed this ruling. It also ruled that prosecutors must provide data about the sergeant’s misconduct to any DWI defendant with a prior conviction from the period of his misconduct.

DWI is a serious offense under New Jersey law. It can significantly impact your life, even without a conviction. You need a carefully planned and prepared defense strategy. A skilled and experienced DWI lawyer can guide you through the legal process and advocate for your rights. Evan Levow has dedicated his law practice to DWI defense. Please contact the firm today at (877) 593-1717 or online to schedule a free and confidential consultation to see how we can help you.