Bad Alcotest Calibrations Invalidate More Than 20,000 DWI Charges
In a unanimous ruling on Tuesday, the court said that the technician's failure to properly calibrate the breath-test machines means that 20,667 cases must be either retried, in the case of convictions, or perhaps abandoned, if they are still pending.
November 13, 2018 at 01:45 PM
4 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed with a special master that a state police technician's errors in calibrating Alcotest devices negate the validity of more than 20,000 breath tests performed on defendants.
In a unanimous ruling on Tuesday, the court said that the technician's failure to properly calibrate the breath-test machines means that 20,667 cases must be either retried, in the case of convictions, or perhaps abandoned, if they are still pending.
The failure to use the type of thermometer specified by the Supreme Court in State v. Chun, its landmark 2008 ruling finding the Alcotest 7110 scientifically reliable, “raises substantial doubts about the scientific reliability of breath test results produced by Alcotest devices calibrated without use of a [National Institute of Science and Technology]-traceable thermometer,” former presiding Appellate Division Judge Joseph Lisa said in a 218-page report issued to the court in May.
Writing for the court Tuesday in the long-awaited ruling in State v. Cassidy, Justice Walter Timpone said, ”We see no reason to question the special master's determination.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHagens Berman Accused of Withholding Share of $13M Award in Pharmaceutical Settlement
Unanswered Questions on Remote Work Complicate NJ Wage Transparency Law, Litigators Say
4 minute read'Go 12 Rounds' or Settle: Rear-End Collision Leads to $2.25M Presuit Settlement
Trending Stories
- 1Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
- 2Elon Musk Has a Lot More Than a 'Tornetta' Appeal to Resolve in Del. Court
- 3Litigation Funder Behind Mastercard Case Says Settlement 'Struck Without Our Agreement'
- 4Russian Official Alleges Fraud in Miami Real Estate Dispute Over Trump Palace Condo
- 5Founder of Failed Crypto Lender Confesses to Fraud
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250