Yesterday, the Appellate Division affirmed a ruling expanding the admissibility of certain blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) tests used in driving while intoxicated (“DWI”) prosecutions. The decision, State v. Holland, A-4384-09T3, A-4775-09T3 (App. Div. Dec. 20, 2011), allows admission of BAC results derived from Alcotest breath-testing devices calibrated with a Control Company, Inc. (“Control Company”) digital thermometer, as opposed to the Ertco-Hart digital thermometer referenced in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 89, 135, 152-53, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 825 (2008).

The crux of this case surrounded whether the use of Control Company digital thermometers, used to measure the temperature of solutions tested in the calibration process of the Alcotest devices, rendered results of those Alcotest BAC tests inadmissible against DWI defendants. Thermometers are used in the calibration process to ensure that the alcoholic solutions that are being tested are 34.0 degrees Celsius (or within .2 degrees of that number), the average range of human breath.

Relying on the ruling in Chun, the defendant’s claimed that in order for the BAC tests to be admissible where a non-Ertco-Hart thermometer was used in calibration, the State had to produce a proper calibration certificate for the thermometer and also prove that the measurements made by the digital thermometer were National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) traceable in accordance with certain requirements listed on the NIST website.

Dr. Howard J. Baum, the Director of the New Jersey State Police’s Office of Forensic Sciences testified in the Law Division proceeding that the Control Company and Ertco-Hart thermometers were comparable and “identical in the performance of the singular function required.” The trial court relied on this testimony in determining that these thermometers were “substantially equivalent in all respects necessary to the performance of their singular functions.”

The court also found that Control Company’s Traceable Certificate of Calibration was a proper foundational document for the calibration of its digital thermometers, as Control Company was an accredited calibration laboratory.

Finally, the Law Division rejected the defendant’s argument that the State had to prove that the measurements made by the digital thermometer were NIST traceable in accordance with certain requirements listed on the NIST website. The court held that under Chun, the State is only required to produce the Calibration Report, which certifies that the digital thermometer had “‘been tested for accuracy with instrumentation that is traceable to’ the NIST.” The Control Company certificate adequately stated that the thermometer “was calibrated using Instruments Traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology.” Therefore, Alcotest results may be admissible where the device was calibrated using Control Company thermometers.

Yesterday, the Appellate Division affirmed a ruling expanding the admissibility of certain blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) tests used in driving while intoxicated (“DWI”) prosecutions. The decision, State v. Holland, A-4384-09T3, A-4775-09T3 (App. Div. Dec. 20, 2011), allows admission of BAC results derived from Alcotest breath-testing devices calibrated with a Control Company, Inc. (“Control Company”) digital thermometer, as opposed to the Ertco-Hart digital thermometer referenced in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 89, 135, 152-53, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 825 (2008).
The crux of this case surrounded whether the use of Control Company digital thermometers, used to measure the temperature of solutions tested in the calibration process of the Alcotest devices, rendered results of those Alcotest BAC tests inadmissible against DWI defendants. Thermometers are used in the calibration process to ensure that the alcoholic solutions that are being tested are 34.0 degrees Celsius (or within .2 degrees of that number), the average range of human breath.
Relying on the ruling in Chun, the defendant’s claimed that in order for the BAC tests to be admissible where a non-Ertco-Hart thermometer was used in calibration, the State had to produce a proper calibration certificate for the thermometer and also prove that the measurements made by the digital thermometer were National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) traceable in accordance with certain requirements listed on the NIST website.
Dr. Howard J. Baum, the Director of the New Jersey State Police’s Office of Forensic Sciences testified in the Law Division proceeding that the Control Company and Ertco-Hart thermometers were comparable and “identical in the performance of the singular function required.” The trial court relied on this testimony in determining that these thermometers were “substantially equivalent in all respects necessary to the performance of their singular functions.”
The court also found that Control Company’s Traceable Certificate of Calibration was a proper foundational document for the calibration of its digital thermometers, as Control Company was an accredited calibration laboratory.
Finally, the Law Division rejected the defendant’s argument that the State had to prove that the measurements made by the digital thermometer were NIST traceable in accordance with certain requirements listed on the NIST website. The court held that under Chun, the State is only required to produce the Calibration Report, which certifies that the digital thermometer had “‘been tested for accuracy with instrumentation that is traceable to’ the NIST.” The Control Company certificate adequately stated that the thermometer “was calibrated using Instruments Traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology.” Therefore, Alcotest results may be admissible where the device was calibrated using Control Company thermometers.