State v. Teare
| Decision Date | 28 May 1974 |
| Citation | 324 A.2d 131,129 N.J.Super. 562 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. John TEARE, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey County Court |
Minish & Dooley, West Orange, for defendant (George J. Minish, West Orange, on the brief).
Joseph P. Lordi, Essex County Prosecutor, for plaintiff (Nicholas Turco, West Orange).
LEOPIZZI, J.D.C., Temporarily Assigned.
This case comes to the County Court on a motion to suppress the results of a breathalyzer test taken pursuant to an arrest under N.J.S.A. 39:4--50 et seq. in the Borough of Verona on January 24, 1974 at 1:25 a.m. Defendant John Teare is a New York State licensed driver and was initially stopped for going through a stop sign. He was given a single breathalyzer test with his consent a short time after his arrest. The reading on the meter was .20, which would be prima facie evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4--50(a).
Approximately one month after this arrest defense counsel contacted the municipal prosecutor by telephone to ask to examine the test ampule used in the breathalyzer test of the defendant. Several days later a letter dated February 28, 1974 was sent by defense counsel to the municipal prosecutor confirming their previous conservation. Defense counsel was informed both by telephone and by letter that the test ampule of defendant had been destroyed in accordance with the routine established by the State Police.
Two motions are now presented to the court. The first is that the complaint against defendant should be dismissed because of the State's failure to produce material evidence. The second motion is made in the alternative and seeks the suppression of the results of a breathalyzer.
The grounds upon which these two motions are based, a request by defense counsel to examine the test ampule of a breathalyzer test, is unique in this State so far as this court is able to ascertain.
An eminently qualified expert with a doctorate in chemistry was produced by defendant at the hearing of these motions. A brief recitation of the findings of fact of the expert's testimony is necessary. I find as a fact:
1. The exact volume of the ampule is critical to the accuracy of the test and the exact volume can later be determined by independent test of the ampule.
2. The alcoholic content of the ampule is converted into acetic acid by a chemical reaction.
3. The amount of acetic acid can later be determined by means of a chemical procedure known as Vapor Phase Chromatography (VPC).
4. By means of VPC a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the contents of the ampule can be later determined.
5. By determining the amount of acetic acid in an ampule the amount of blood alcohol in the person tested can later be determined.
6. In order to prevent deterioration of the contents of a test ampule for later examination, it should be stored in an amber-colored bottle to prevent light from entering, and tightly capped to prevent oxidation.
7. If properly stored, the contents of a test ampule would not deteriorate within a reasonable period of time.
8. Because the test reading of the breathalyzer is made shortly after the ampule is breathed into, the chemical reaction of alcohol to acetic acid has not been fully completed at the time of the test reading. A reading or other test taken at a later time would be likely to have a slightly higher reading. Therefore, if the later test were to show a result less than or equal to the test conducted by the police officer, this second test result would at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hedrick
...This evidence creates a presumption of intoxication under our statute. Section 42--4--1202(2), C.R.S.1973. See also State v. Teare, 129 N.J.Super. 562, 324 A.2d 131 (1974). The issue here is not police misconduct. It is more fundamental. Failure of the prosecution to produce a sample of the......
-
State v. Michener
...standard police procedure neither defendant was specifically informed of that right in these cases. See also State v. Teare, 129 N.J.Super. 562, 324 A.2d 131 (Law Div.1974), Rev'd, 133 N.J.Super. 338, 336 A.2d 496 (App.Div.1975), Rev'd, 135 N.J.Super. 19, 342 A.2d 556 (App.Div.1975); State ......
-
Kuhner v. Marlyn Manor, Inc.
... ... There seem to be no reported decisions in this State in which a manufacturer or distributor has [324 A.2d 130] been held strictly liable in tort for its failure to warn of a latent danger in a perfectly ... ...
-
State v. Bryan
...Defendant offered no testimony on her own behalf but relied solely upon the decision rendered by the court in State v. Teare, 129 N.J.Super. 562, 324 A.2d 131 (Cty.Ct.1974). In that case defendant produced a chemist who testified to a theory which he concluded could enable the chemical test......