People v. Freeland

• Decision Date: 03 July 1986
• Citation: People v. Freeland, 68 N.Y.2d 699, 506 N.Y.S.2d 306, 497 N.E.2d 673 (N.Y. 1986)
• Parties: , 497 N.E.2d 673 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leslie G. FREELAND, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 306

506 N.Y.S.2d 306

68 N.Y.2d 699, 497 N.E.2d 673

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v.Leslie G. FREELAND, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 3, 1986.

Edmund J. Hoffmann, Jr., Cortland, for appellant.

Benjamin J. Bucko, Dist. Atty. (Robert C. Mulvey, Ithaca, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 116 A.D.2d 765, 497 N.Y.S.2d 163(1986) should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

As 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 alia, that the testing device was in proper working order at the time the test was administered to the defendant(People v. Todd, 38 N.Y.2d 755, 381 N.Y.S.2d 50, 343 N.E.2d 767) and that the chemicals used in conducting the test were of the proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions (People v. Donaldson, 36 A.D.2d 37, 319 N.Y.S.2d 172;People v. Meikrantz, 77 Misc.2d 892, 351 N.Y.S.2d 549).

People v. Gower, 42 N.Y.2d 117, 397 N.Y.S.2d 368, 366 N.E.2d 69 does not establish a contrary rule, despite its suggestion that it might be appropriate to shift the emphasis in such matters from "technical issues of admissibility of evidence to means for measuring its persuasive weight"( id., pp. 121-122, 397 N.Y.S.2d 368, 366 N.E.2d 69).We reserved decision in that case on the question presented here, namely, "whether or to what degree the People, in laying a foundation for admission of the results of individual tests, would have to establish that the breathalyzer device was in proper working order"( id., p. 122, 397 N.Y.S.2d 368, 366 N.E.2d 69).

We are presented in this case with a record devoid of any evidence to support the conclusion that the testing device was capable of producing an accurate result.Proof that the test operator was certified by the Health Department to conduct breathalyzer tests, while permitting the inference that the test was properly given (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[9];see, People v. Mertz, 68 N.Y.2d 136, 506 N.Y.S.2d 290, 497 N.E.2d 657 is not probative of the distinct foundational requirement concerning the accuracy of the machine.Similarly, the observations of the arresting officers and the results of the field sobriety test, while tending to show that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, are no proof that the breathalyzer was capable of accurately discerning the critical distinction between a legally permissible blood alcohol content and that which is statutorily proscribed.

Thus, in the absence...