Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New York opinions name it 7 courts 1986–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Freelandgreen2 sentences2008Although “the scientific reliability of breathalyzers in general is no longer open to question” (People v Mertz, 68 NY2d 136, 148 [1986]), the People are required, as a foundational requirement for the admission of breathalyzer test results in a prosecution under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, to introduce the “evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably conclude, inter alia, that the testing device was in proper working order at the time the test was administered to the defendant” (People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699, 700 [1986]). 1989The Court of Appeals, in its most recent pronouncement on this question, expressly declined to adopt specific guidelines as to the "nature, quantity and quality of proof * * * required to establish th[e] foundational requirements” for the admission of breathalyzer test results into evidence (People v Freeland, supra, at 701 ). | 1 | 4 |
People v. Mertzgreen2 sentences2008Although “the scientific reliability of breathalyzers in general is no longer open to question” (People v Mertz, 68 NY2d 136, 148 [1986]), the People are required, as a foundational requirement for the admission of breathalyzer test results in a prosecution under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, to introduce the “evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably conclude, inter alia, that the testing device was in proper working order at the time the test was administered to the defendant” (People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699, 700 [1986]). 1996While breathalyzer documents may thus properly be received under the business records exception to the hearsay rule enunciated in CPLR 4518 * * * admissibil ity is conditioned upon strict compliance with the provisions of subdivisions (a) and (c) of that section (People v Mertz, 68 NY2d 136 ).” (Emphasis added; citations omitted.) In the case at bar, the court is of the opinion that the technical requirements of CPLR 4518 (a) and (c) were met by virtue of what is set forth in the "Certificate of Photostatic Copy of Record of Analysis — Breathalyzer Ampoules” which was offered in evidence as pa | 1 | 2 |
People v. Garneaugreen2 sentences1996As indicated by the Fourth Department in People v Garneau ( 120 AD2d 112, 115 [1986]): "It is well settled that as a foundational requirement for the admission of breathalyzer test results, evidence must be introduced both that the breathalyzer was in proper working condition when the test was given to defendant, and that the chemicals used in the test were of the proper kind and in the proper proportion * * * Out of practical necessity, the foundational requirement may be met by documentary proof. 1986Moreover, with relation to the admission of breathalyzer test results the only foundational requirement is that "evidence must be introduced both that the breathalyzer was in proper working condition when the test was given to defendant, and that the chemicals used in the test were of the proper kind and in the proper proportion” (People v Garneau, 120 AD2d 112,115 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Alvarezgreen1 sentence2008Furthermore, “other avenues of challenge to the accuracy of the breathalyzer test are available” to a defendant, and a “defendant may not be denied discovery which prevents him [or her] from challenging the reliability and accuracy of the machine” (People v Alvarez, 70 NY2d 375, 380 [1987], citing People v English, 103 AD2d 979 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Todd
green
2 sentences1987(People v Todd, 38 NY2d 755 [1975].) The Court of Appeals has conspicuously failed to establish a specific set of guidelines for determining what foundation must be laid for the admission of breathalyzer test results. 1986It is well settled that as a foundational requirement for the admission of breathalyzer test results, evidence must be introduced both that the breathalyzer was in proper working condition when the test was given to defendant, and that the chemicals used in the test were of the proper kind and in the proper proportion (People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699 ; People v Todd, 38 NY2d 755 ; People v Donaldson, supra; People v Meikrantz, 77 Misc 2d 892 ). | 3 | 1986–1987 |
People v. Gower
green
2 sentences1987(See, People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699 [1986]; People v Gower, 42 NY2d 117 [1977]; People v Todd, supra.) In commenting on the acceptance of the reliability of breathalyzer equipment and procedures and the fact that no precise or general guidelines for the admissibility of breathalyzer test results can be laid down in advance, the court stated in People v Gower (supra, at 121 ): "Breathalyzer equipment and procedures have become familiar and their use is now commonplace. 1987(See, People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699 [1986]; People v Gower, 42 NY2d 117 [1977]; People v Todd, supra.) In commenting on the acceptance of the reliability of breathalyzer equipment and procedures and the fact that no precise or general guidelines for the admissibility of breathalyzer test results can be laid down in advance, the court stated in People v Gower (supra, at 121 ): "Breathalyzer equipment and procedures have become familiar and their use is now commonplace. | 2 | 1986–1987 |
People v. Donaldson
green
2 sentences1986As a foundational requirement for the admission of breathalyzer test results in a prosecution under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, the People must introduce evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably conclude, inter alla, that the testing device was in proper working order at the time the test was administered to the defendant (People v Todd, 38 NY2d 755 ) and that the chemicals used in conducting the test were of the proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions (People v Donaldson, 36 AD2d 37 ; People v Meikrantz, 77 Misc 2d 892 ). 1986It is well settled that as a foundational requirement for the admission of breathalyzer test results, evidence must be introduced both that the breathalyzer was in proper working condition when the test was given to defendant, and that the chemicals used in the test were of the proper kind and in the proper proportion (People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699 ; People v Todd, 38 NY2d 755 ; People v Donaldson, supra; People v Meikrantz, 77 Misc 2d 892 ). | 2 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Meikrantz
green
2 sentences1986As a foundational requirement for the admission of breathalyzer test results in a prosecution under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, the People must introduce evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably conclude, inter alla, that the testing device was in proper working order at the time the test was administered to the defendant (People v Todd, 38 NY2d 755 ) and that the chemicals used in conducting the test were of the proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions (People v Donaldson, 36 AD2d 37 ; People v Meikrantz, 77 Misc 2d 892 ). 1986It is well settled that as a foundational requirement for the admission of breathalyzer test results, evidence must be introduced both that the breathalyzer was in proper working condition when the test was given to defendant, and that the chemicals used in the test were of the proper kind and in the proper proportion (People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699 ; People v Todd, 38 NY2d 755 ; People v Donaldson, supra; People v Meikrantz, 77 Misc 2d 892 ). | 2 | 1986–1986 |
People v. English
green
1 sentence2008Furthermore, “other avenues of challenge to the accuracy of the breathalyzer test are available” to a defendant, and a “defendant may not be denied discovery which prevents him [or her] from challenging the reliability and accuracy of the machine” (People v Alvarez, 70 NY2d 375, 380 [1987], citing People v English, 103 AD2d 979 [1984]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2005The local criminal court determined that the use of this documentary evidence, a certification of calibration, violates the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution Sixth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Crawford v Washington ( 541 US 36 [2004]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Rosario
green
1 sentence1995The order sought to be appealed from suppressed or, more precisely, excluded the admission of breathalyzer test results administered at the direction of the police under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (see, People v Rosario, 136 Misc 2d 445 ; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195 [1]). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.