Alcosensor test in New York

2005This screening or breath test machine is used as a pass/ fail test and is basically reliable for the determination of some presence of alcohol in a person’s blood but not the actual percentage or concentration.” (Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 62A, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, at 91 [1996 ed].) The case law generally is that evidence of an alcosensor test is not admissible at trial (cf. People v Thomas, 121 AD2d 73 [1986], affd 70 NY2d 823 [1987]; People v MacDonald, 227 AD2d 672 [1996], affd 89 NY2d 908 [1996]; People v Wright, 1 Misc 3d 133[A] , 2003 NY

2005This screening or breath test machine is used as a pass/ fail test and is basically reliable for the determination of some presence of alcohol in a person’s blood but not the actual percentage or concentration.” (Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 62A, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, at 91 [1996 ed].) The case law generally is that evidence of an alcosensor test is not admissible at trial (cf. People v Thomas, 121 AD2d 73 [1986], affd 70 NY2d 823 [1987]; People v MacDonald, 227 AD2d 672 [1996], affd 89 NY2d 908 [1996]; People v Wright, 1 Misc 3d 133[A] , 2003 NY

2005This screening or breath test machine is used as a pass/ fail test and is basically reliable for the determination of some presence of alcohol in a person’s blood but not the actual percentage or concentration.” (Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 62A, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, at 91 [1996 ed].) The case law generally is that evidence of an alcosensor test is not admissible at trial (cf. People v Thomas, 121 AD2d 73 [1986], affd 70 NY2d 823 [1987]; People v MacDonald, 227 AD2d 672 [1996], affd 89 NY2d 908 [1996]; People v Wright, 1 Misc 3d 133[A] , 2003 NY

2005This screening or breath test machine is used as a pass/ fail test and is basically reliable for the determination of some presence of alcohol in a person’s blood but not the actual percentage or concentration.” (Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 62A, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, at 91 [1996 ed].) The case law generally is that evidence of an alcosensor test is not admissible at trial (cf. People v Thomas, 121 AD2d 73 [1986], affd 70 NY2d 823 [1987]; People v MacDonald, 227 AD2d 672 [1996], affd 89 NY2d 908 [1996]; People v Wright, 1 Misc 3d 133[A] , 2003 NY

2001Similarly, had defendant simply been asked to give blood without inaccurately threatening legal reprecussions, the results would also be admissible (People v Osburn, supra).

1999Based upon the information from the identified citizen and his own observations of defendant, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for driving while intoxicated (see, People v Sekoll, 254 AD2d 797 , lv denied 92 NY2d 1053 ; People v Daniger, 227 AD2d 846 , lv denied 88 NY2d 1020 ; People v May, 191 AD2d 1011, 1012 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1016 ).

1999Based upon the information from the identified citizen and his own observations of defendant, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for driving while intoxicated (see, People v Sekoll, 254 AD2d 797 , lv denied 92 NY2d 1053 ; People v Daniger, 227 AD2d 846 , lv denied 88 NY2d 1020 ; People v May, 191 AD2d 1011, 1012 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1016 ).

1999Based upon the information from the identified citizen and his own observations of defendant, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for driving while intoxicated (see, People v Sekoll, 254 AD2d 797 , lv denied 92 NY2d 1053 ; People v Daniger, 227 AD2d 846 , lv denied 88 NY2d 1020 ; People v May, 191 AD2d 1011, 1012 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1016 ).

1999Based upon the information from the identified citizen and his own observations of defendant, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for driving while intoxicated (see, People v Sekoll, 254 AD2d 797 , lv denied 92 NY2d 1053 ; People v Daniger, 227 AD2d 846 , lv denied 88 NY2d 1020 ; People v May, 191 AD2d 1011, 1012 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1016 ).

1999Based upon the information from the identified citizen and his own observations of defendant, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for driving while intoxicated (see, People v Sekoll, 254 AD2d 797 , lv denied 92 NY2d 1053 ; People v Daniger, 227 AD2d 846 , lv denied 88 NY2d 1020 ; People v May, 191 AD2d 1011, 1012 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1016 ).

1999Based upon the information from the identified citizen and his own observations of defendant, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for driving while intoxicated (see, People v Sekoll, 254 AD2d 797 , lv denied 92 NY2d 1053 ; People v Daniger, 227 AD2d 846 , lv denied 88 NY2d 1020 ; People v May, 191 AD2d 1011, 1012 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1016 ).

1994School Dist., 132 Misc 2d 999, 1002 .) The wording of the statute leads the court to the conclusion that it was the intention of the Legislature that when a defendant is both arrested and given an alcosensor test, the event that is to be used as the starting time for the subsequent administering of a chemical test in compliance with the "two-hour rule” is the giving of the alcosensor test.

1994Defendant’s primary challenge to the prosecution’s case is that the evidence failed to establish that the checkpoint was operated in conformity with the requirements established by the Court of Appeals in People v Scott ( 63 NY2d 518 [1984]).