People v. Seaman
| Decision Date | 05 November 1970 |
| Citation | 64 Misc.2d 684,315 N.Y.S.2d 743 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Donald SEAMAN, Defendant. |
| Court | New York District Court |
The defendant makes two motions, one to receive the results of the blood chemical test administered to him on February 24th 1970, and to allow the defendant to have his blood specimen examined by a physician of his own choosing. The second branch of the motion seeks an order suppressing the use in evidence of the blood sample.
With respect to the motion to suppress, the matter is set down for a hearing on November 27th, 1970.
With respect to the first motion, defendant was arrested pursuant to a charge of Driving While Intoxicated on the 23rd day of February, 1970, at 11:30 P.M. Some time after his arrest, defendant submitted to a blood test. At the present time, defendant has moved for an order allowing the defendant to have the blood specimen examined by a physician of his own choosing.
Subdivision 4 of Section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law states that:
The person tested shall be permitted to have a physician of his own choosing administer a chemical test in addition to the one administered at the direction of the police officer.
It is unquestioned that a person arrested on a charge of driving while intoxicated has a right upon his request to have a separate blood sample withdrawn by a physician of his own choosing. Whether a defendant has a right to have the blood sample withdrawn at the request of a police officer re-analyzed by a physician of his own choosing presents an entirely different situation. The blood sample being discussed here, was withdrawn over eight months ago. What effect this would have upon the blood is not clear to this Court. It might very well be that the same results cannot be obtained at this point. It may be that the alcoholic content in the blood dissipates by freezing or by other methods of storage.
This Court has been informed by the police laboratory that after blood samples are analyzed, they are stored on shelves at the lab. There are no special precautions taken to preserve the alcoholic content of the specimen except that a chemical known as sodium fluoride is injected into the sample which might preserve the alcohol for short periods. After that time the chemical and the ordinary bacterial action will cause a dissipation of the alcoholic content in the blood. Therefore, it would appear that a true reading can only be obtained within a short time after the blood is withdrawn. Thus, even if this motion were to be granted, before any evidence could be admitted on the re-analysis, defendant would have to show an unchanged condition of the blood sample. Where the basis for a conviction of Driving While Intoxicated is the alcoholic content of a blood specimen, it is essential to show the chain of possession of the blood sample and the unchanged condition of the container from the time it is taken from a defendant until it is delivered to the chemist. (People v. Pfendler, 29 Misc.2d 339, 212 N.Y.S.2d 927). Blood specimens to be used as evidence in trials should be handled with the greatest of care and all persons who handle the specimen should be ready to identify it and testify to its custody and unchanged condition (People on Information of Buckhout v. Sansalone, 208 Misc. 491, 146 N.Y.S.2d 359)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Farmer
...a Breathalyzer test. Its results were available to him as a matter of right (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1194, subd. 6; People v. Seaman, 64 Misc.2d 684, 315 N.Y.S.2d 743). It showed a blood alcohol level far beyond that required for convicti under subdivision 2. Its findings were admissible......
-
People v. Karpeles
...test of blood samples); People v. Inness, 69 Misc.2d 429, 326 N.Y.S.2d 669 (Westchester Cty. Ct.) (test reports); People v. Seaman, 64 Misc.2d 684, 315 N.Y.S.2d 743 (1st Dist.Ct., Suffolk Cty.) (test reports; independent test of remaining sample granted conditionally upon proof that the che......
-
People v. Bradford
...available to him as a matter of right would, in fact, put him on notice as to the specifics of the charge. (See People v. Seaman, 64 Misc.2d 684, 315 N.Y.S.2d 743; see Section 1194, subd. 6, Vehicle and Traffic Law.) By this posture, it appears that the defendant seeks the best of both worl......
-
People v. Batista
...one required by the Police Department. Both tests must be performed within two hours of arrest. (VTL § 1194[1].) 2 (See People v. Seaman, 64 Misc.2d 684, 315 N.Y.S.2d 743 [District Court Suffolk County, The issue this court must decide is whether the defendant has been denied her right to a......