Alcotest Ruling Highlights Importance of Scientific Evidence
The careful scientific analysis undertaken by the special master and adopted by the court is especially important in this state, and reminds us of the importance of science and scientific analysis in today's world where scientific evidence is too often ignored.
November 30, 2018 at 05:00 PM
4 minute read
In New Jersey, a conviction for drunk driving can lead to serious consequences—loss of one's driving license, a significant fine, and even jail time. Since such a conviction can be adjudicated based on data produced by a machine standing alone, it is imperative that machine-generated data be reliable.
The machine in question is the Alcotest, used in New Jersey since 2000. In 2016, the person within the State Police who was responsible for performing semiannual calibrations of the Alcotest instrument was indicted for falsely certifying that he had performed the required periodic calibration procedures when in fact he had not done so on machines used in five New Jersey counties: Middlesex, Ocean, Somerset, Monmouth and Union. Specifically, he had not used a thermometer that meets the standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to measure the temperature of simulator solutions used to calibrate the Alcotest devices.
The number of individuals whose breath samples had been obtained using these faultily calibrated instruments was large—20,667. When the police official was indicted, New Jersey's Attorney General's Office notified the Administrative Office of the Courts about the problem.
On Nov. 13, 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided a case filed by one of these 20,667 persons, who was seeking to withdraw a guilty plea she had decided to enter based solely on her Alcotest reading. State of New Jersey v. Eileen Cassidy. Although the movant had since died, the court held that the case was not moot because it involved “an issue of significant public importance [that] is likely to recur.” It affirmed and adopted the findings and 198-page report of a special master, retired judge, Joseph F. Lisa, whom the court praised “for his diligence and insightfulness so evident in his extensive and thorough report.”
While a summary cannot do justice to the special master's detailed, careful and lengthy analysis of the evidence, including his credibility findings of the experts who testified, suffice it to say that the temperature of the solution used for calibration is key to the accuracy of the instrument's readings and must be at the generally accepted temperature for human breath, creating a vapor that, the court said, “is a proxy for human breath.” In short, accurate temperature readings of the simulator solutions are “critical to the accuracy of the Alcotest.” As the Supreme Court held, failure to use a thermometer that produced NIST-traceable temperature readings for calibration “undermines the reliability of the Alcotest.” Use of such thermometer is especially important because the NIST-traceable thermometer was the only temperature measuring device used in the calibration procedure that was not manufactured by the company that made the machines themselves. Thus, if there were bias or error in the manufacturer's laboratory, that could affect the calibration and be undetected if no independently manufactured thermometer were used.
Since the Alcotest machines in the five counties had been improperly calibrated, the Supreme Court (a) ordered the state to notify all affected defendants that the Alcotest results in their cases are inadmissible in evidence so that they can “take appropriate action;” (b) relaxed the five-year time bar for post-conviction relief under Rule 7:10-2(b)(2) in the interests of justice; and (c) vacated defendant Cassidy's drunk driving conviction.
The careful scientific analysis undertaken by the special master and adopted by the court is especially important in this state where this machine-generated data, standing alone, effectively amounts to a per se conviction because a machine cannot be cross-examined. It also reminds us of the importance of science and scientific analysis in today's world where scientific evidence is too often ignored.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readAppellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
5 minute readWhere CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute read'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250