NEW YORK

New York Driving Intoxicated Breathalyzer Results Admissible Lawyers Attorneys - By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah


The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Thomas, Defendant

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

FACTS:

Police stopped defendant because the temporary license on his car had expired. The officer noticed that defendant had blood shot and watery eyes, his speech was slurred, he smelled of alcohol, and he was unsteady when he exited the car. After a field sobriety test indicated that defendant was intoxicated, he was arrested and read his Miranda rights. Defendant was taken to a precinct where he was shown a tape in Spanish regarding breathalyzer tests. Defendant fully cooperated and never indicated that he did not understand or did not wish to participate. Defendant sought to suppress his breathalyzer test results obtained as a consequence of his arrest for driving while intoxicated.

ISSUES:

The issue here is whether the breathalyzer test results were admissible in evidence?

DISCUSSION:

The people have no obligation to establish, as a condition precedent to admission of breathalyzer test results at trial, that defendant affirmatively consented to take the breathalyzer test. Rather, under N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1194(1) such consent is deemed to have been given when defendant used the highway, as long as the people can demonstrate that the breathalyzer test was administered at the direction of a police officer who had "reasonable grounds" to believe defendant was driving in violation of any subdivision of N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1192 and that the test was given within two hours either of defendant's arrest for driving while intoxicated or of a breath screening test. Where the police follow these procedural requirements, chemical evidence obtained from a defendant will be admissible at a trial, regardless whether or not he affirmatively agreed to submit to a chemical test. Indeed, if the statutory prerequisites are met, it is immaterial whether the suspect/patient knows what is transpiring, understands it, or consents to it--so long as he/she does not refuse

JUDGMENT:

The court held that defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the police acted unreasonably; therefore, the breathalyzer test results were admissible evidence.

Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content