You are here: / BREATHALYZER/CHEMICAL TEST

Tag Archive for: BREATHALYZER/CHEMICAL TEST

, , ,

Non-Constitutional Appellate Issues Re: Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test (DWI) Do Not Survive a Guilty Plea

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined defendant, by pleading guilty, had forfeited his right to appellate review of (non-constitutional) rulings about the admissibility of his refusal to submit to a chemical test (DWI) after his involvement in a car accident. The court explained why some appellate issues survive a guilty plea and some don’t:

The Court of Appeals has repeatedly observed that “a plea of guilty generally marks the end of a criminal case, not a gateway to further litigation'” … . A guilty plea signals the defendant’s intention not to litigate the issue of his or her guilt, “and necessarily involves the surrender of certain constitutional rights, including the right to confrontation, the privilege against self incrimination and the right to trial by jury” … . A guilty plea not only encompasses a waiver of the specific rights attached to a trial, but also “effects a forfeiture of the right to renew many arguments made before the plea” … . “This is so because a defendant’s conviction rests directly on the sufficiency of his plea, not on the legal or constitutional sufficiency of any proceedings which might have led to his conviction after trial'” … . The forfeiture occasioned by a guilty plea extends to a variety of claims, including those premised upon a failure to provide CPL 710.30 notice … , the statutory right to a speedy trial … , the exercise of alleged discriminatory peremptory challenges … , and adverse rulings on Sandoval and Ventimiglia/Molineux applications … .

However, not every claim is forfeited by a guilty plea. The issues that survive a valid guilty plea generally relate either to jurisdictional matters, such as an insufficient accusatory instrument, or to rights of a constitutional dimension that go to the heart of the criminal justice process … . “The critical distinction is between defects implicating the integrity of the process, which may survive a guilty plea, and less fundamental flaws, such as evidentiary or technical matters, which do not” … . Examples of rights of constitutional dimension which are not forfeited by a guilty plea include the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the protection against double jeopardy, and the competency of the defendant to stand trial … .

Among the limited group of issues that survive a valid guilty plea and may be raised on a subsequent appeal are those relating to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under CPL 710.20 … . The Legislature has preserved such claims for appellate review through the enactment of CPL 710.70(2) … . CPL 710.70(2) expressly grants a defendant a statutory right to appellate review of an order denying a motion to suppress evidence “notwithstanding the fact” that the judgment of conviction “is entered upon a plea of guilty.” However, the statutory right to appellate review created by CPL 710.70(2) applies to orders which deny a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds enumerated by CPL 710.20 … .  Athough CPL 710.20(5)  authorizes a defendant to move to suppress evidence of “a chemical test of the defendant’s blood administered in violation of the provisions” of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(3) or “any other applicable law,” that provision is not implicated here. In this case, the defendant did not move to suppress the results of a chemical test of his blood. Indeed, the police did not perform a chemical test upon the defendant. Rather, he moved to preclude the People from admitting testimony of his refusal to submit to a chemical test. Such a motion cannot be characterized as one seeking suppression under CPL 710.20(5). Accordingly, the defendant does not have a statutory right to appellate review of the County Court’s ruling permitting the introduction of evidence of his refusal to submit to a chemical test.

Nor is the defendant’s claim that the County Court erred in ruling that the People would be permitted to introduce evidence at trial of his refusal to submit to a chemical test a claim of constitutional dimension, or one that bears upon the integrity of the judicial process. Rather, the court’s determination relates to an evidentiary or technical matter. People v Sirico, 2015 NY Slip Op 07862, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

, ,

The Prejudicial Effect of the Result of the Portable Breath Test (PBT) Outweighed Its Probative Value—New Trial Ordered

The Second Department determined defendant’s DWI conviction must be reversed because evidence of the result of the portable breath test (PBT), which is generally inadmissible as unreliable, was allowed in evidence. The defendant had subsequently agreed to the chemical breath test, which can be admissible evidence at trial, but his breaths were so shallow during repeated attempts to administer the test that no results were obtained. The result of the PBT (which showed the presence of alcohol) was deemed admissible, not as proof of intoxication, but as evidence of defendant’s state of mind when the chemical breath test was administered (the People’s position was that defendant deliberately sabotaged the chemical test with shallow breaths).  Although the PBT was ostensibly not admitted as proof of intoxication, the Second Department determined the jury would have taken it as such and, therefore, the probative value of the test result was outweighed by its prejudicial effect:

On appeal, the defendant contends that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial based on the County Court’s admission of the PBT results into evidence. We agree. Under the circumstances of this case, the probative value of the PBT evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect and, accordingly, should have been excluded … .

Generally, the result of a PBT “is not admissible to establish intoxication, as its reliability for this purpose is not generally accepted in the scientific community” … . Here, although the PBT evidence was not introduced for the purpose of proving intoxication, since the jurors were permitted to hear that the PBT detected the presence of alcohol, the County Court created an unacceptable risk that the jurors would improperly consider the PBT evidence for this impermissible purpose. This risk was enhanced both by the County Court’s determination to take judicial notice that the PBT was on the Commissioner’s conforming list and the State Trooper’s trial testimony that he was trained in the operation of the PBT device. The trooper’s testimony in this regard, which was directed towards the issue of whether the PBT was reliable for its intended purpose—the assessment of the defendant’s level of intoxication—was irrelevant to the defendant’s state of mind at the time he submitted to the chemical breath test at the State Police barracks. Thus, this testimony increased the risk that the jury would be unable to avoid considering the PBT evidence as proof of the defendant’s intoxication. People v Palencia, 2015 NY Slip Op 06373, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, ,

Revocation of Driver’s License for Refusal of the Chemical Test Reversed—No “Reasonable Suspicion” to Justify Vehicle Stop

Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated and refused the chemical test.  As a result petitioner’s license was revoked by an administrative law judge.  The Second Department annulled the determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board (which upheld the revocation).  The court determined the arresting officer did not have “reasonable suspicion” justifying the initial stop.  Petitioner was in a parked car with the engine running. The officer parked behind petitioner’s car, blocking any exit, and then approached the car. Only then did the officer notice signs of intoxication:

At a hearing held pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, the hearing officer is required to determine, inter alia, whether the police lawfully arrested the operator of the motor vehicle for operating such vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 … . In order for an arrest to be lawful, the initial stop must itself be lawful (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 222). Under the circumstances of this case, where the officer prevented the petitioner from departing, activated his vehicle’s emergency lights, and shined a light into the petitioner’s parked vehicle, a forcible stop and detention occurred … . The Department of Motor Vehicles, however, failed to establish that there was reasonable suspicion to justify the forcible stop and detention of the petitioner’s person or vehicle … and, accordingly, the challenged determination cannot be sustained. Matter of Stewart v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 04857, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

, , ,

No “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Vehicle Stop—Revocation of License for Refusal of Chemical Test Reversed

Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated and refused the chemical test.  As a result petitioner’s license was revoked by an administrative law judge.  The Second Department annulled the determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board (which upheld the revocation).  The court determined the arresting officer did not have “reasonable suspicion” justifying the initial stop.  Petitioner was in a parked car with the engine running. The officer parked behind petitioner’s car, blocking any exit, and then approached the car. Only then did the officer notice signs of intoxication:

At a hearing held pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, the hearing officer is required to determine, inter alia, whether the police lawfully arrested the operator of the motor vehicle for operating such vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 … . In order for an arrest to be lawful, the initial stop must itself be lawful (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 222). Under the circumstances of this case, where the officer prevented the petitioner from departing, activated his vehicle’s emergency lights, and shined a light into the petitioner’s parked vehicle, a forcible stop and detention occurred … . The Department of Motor Vehicles, however, failed to establish that there was reasonable suspicion to justify the forcible stop and detention of the petitioner’s person or vehicle … and, accordingly, the challenged determination cannot be sustained. Matter of Stewart v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 04857, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

, ,

Defendant’s Limited Right to Seek the Advice of an Attorney Before Consenting to a Breathalyzer Test Was Violated When the Sheriff’s Department Administered the Test Without First Telling Defendant an Attorney Had Communicated with the Sheriff’s Department on Her Behalf

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, over a dissent, determined defendant's breathalyzer test results were properly suppressed.  After her arrest for Driving While Intoxicated, the defendant did not ask to speak with an attorney and consented to the test.  However, her family communicated with an attorney who called before the breathalyzer test was administered and told the sheriff's department not to test or question the defendant.  The Court of Appeals determined the sheriff's department was obligated to inform the defendant about the attorney's communication before administering the test:

In People v Gursey (22 NY2d 224 [1968])… we recognized a limited right of the accused to seek legal assistance in alcohol-related driving cases. We held that, based on the warning procedure set forth in section 1194 (2) (b), “if a defendant arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol asks to contact an attorney before responding to a request to take a chemical test, the police 'may not, without justification, prevent access between the criminal accused and his lawyer, available in person or by immediate telephone communication'” … . Violation of this right to legal consultation generally requires suppression of the scientific evidence …. Because time is of the essence in obtaining accurate chemical test evidence …, we further observed in Gursey that a suspect's communication with a lawyer regarding “the exercise of legal rights should not [] extend so far as to palpably impair or nullify the statutory procedure requiring drivers to choose between taking the test or losing their licenses” … .

It is therefore well established that “there is no absolute right to refuse to take the test until an attorney is actually consulted, nor can a defendant use a request for legal consultation to significantly postpone testing” … . In other words, conferring with counsel is permissible only if “'such access does not interfere unduly'” with timely administration of the test … . * * *

In our view, the statutory right to legal consultation applies when an attorney contacts the police before a chemical test for alcohol is performed and the police must alert the subject to the presence of counsel, whether the contact is made in person or telephonically. Gursey contemplated that a lawyer retained to represent a DWI arrestee can directly communicate with the police, reasoning that “law enforcement officials may not, without justification, prevent access between the criminal accused and [the] lawyer, available in person or by immediate telephone communication, if such access does not interfere unduly” with the administration of alcohol test … . The fact that defendant consented to the breathalyzer about the same time that the attorney was communicating with the police is not dispositive since defendant, after conferring with counsel, could have revoked her consent prior to administration of the test (see generally Vehicle & Traffic Law §§ 1194 [2] [b], 1194-a [3] [c]). The police therefore must advise the accused that a lawyer has made contact on the accused's behalf … . Once so informed, the accused may choose to consult with counsel or forego that option and proceed with the chemical test. People v Washington, 2014 NY Slip Op 04190, CtApp 5-6-14

 

,

Right to Counsel Not Invoked by Defendant’s Telling Police He Wanted to Speak to his Attorney Before He Signed Anything; Spontaneous Statements Made After Right to Counsel Attached Not Suppressible; Non-Communicative Parts of Video Not Suppressible; Limited Right to Counsel Re: Deciding to Submit to Chemical Test Not Invoked

The Third Department, in reversing (in part) County Court’s suppression of videotaped statements made by the defendant after a DWI arrest, dealt in some depth with several issues:  (1) the court noted that, although a defendant seeking a suppression hearing must make sworn factual allegations supporting the motion, CPL [Criminal Procedure Law] 710.60 “does not mandate summary denial of defendant’s motion even if the factual allegations are deficient” and the hearing was properly granted in this case under “principles of judicial economy;” (2) the defendant did not invoke his right to counsel by telling the police he wanted to speak to his attorney before he signed anything; (3) the defendant did invoke his right to counsel when he subsequently asked that he be allowed to call his attorney; (3) defendant’s spontaneous statements, even those made after right to counsel attached, were not suppressible; (4) defendant’s responses to questions about the chemical test and where he last had a drink were suppressible; (5) the portions of the videotape that did not contain any communication were not suppressible; and (6) although a defendant has a limited right to counsel for the purpose of deciding whether to submit to a chemical test, the defendant did not exercise that right before refusing the test. With regard to spontaneous statements and the “non-communicative” portions of the video, the court wrote:

With a few exceptions, the video reveals that defendant’s statements in the period preceding the reading of his Miranda rights were made without any triggering words or conduct by the police. As the officers played no role in soliciting them, these statements constitute spontaneous declarations and should not have been subject to suppression … . However, at three points following defendant’s successful invocation of his right to counsel, officers asked him questions that should reasonably have been anticipated to elicit responses. The first such exchange occurred between 03:47:49 a.m. and 03:48:10 a.m., when defendant responded after an officer asked him what he thought would occur as a result of refusing a chemical test. The second occurred between 03:50:01 a.m. and 03:50:09 a.m., when defendant confirmed his last drinking location in response to a question by one of the officers. The third occurred between 04:01:05 a.m. and 04:06:23 a.m., when an officer asked defendant several questions about chemical testing and the events of the evening. Defendant’s responses to these inquiries cannot be said to be spontaneous. Thus, his statements during these three time periods and the corresponding portions of the video were properly suppressed.

As to portions of the video in which defendant was not speaking, evidence obtained from a defendant following invocation of the right to counsel is subject to suppression where it constitutes “a communicative act that disclose[s] the contents of defendant’s mind” … . Generally, a defendant’s physical characteristics and appearance are not considered to be communicative in nature … . Here, portions of the video in which defendant is silent show only his physical condition and appearance and do not disclose any communicative statements made after he had invoked his right to counsel. Whether any of these video segments may ultimately be deemed admissible at trial depends on other considerations not presented here, but there is no basis for their suppression as communicative statements … . People v Higgins, 2014 NY Slip Op 00253, 3rd Dept 1-8-15

 

, , , ,

Breath Test Results Suppressed Because Defendant Not Informed Her Attorney Had Appeared in the Case Prior to the Test

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department affirmed the suppression of a chemical breath-test because the police did not inform the defendant her attorney had appeared in the case before the test was administered.  As Justice Leventhal described the “right to counsel” issue and holding:

This case calls upon us to address a matter of first impression involving the right to counsel under the New York Constitution (see NY Const, art I, § 6), where the defendant consented to a chemical breath test to determine her blood alcohol content (hereinafter BAC), but, prior to the commencement of the test, the police made no effort to inform the defendant that her attorney had appeared in the matter. … [W]e hold that where, as here, the police are aware that an attorney has appeared in a case before the chemical breath test begins, they must make reasonable efforts to inform the motorist of counsel’s appearance if such notification will not substantially interfere with the timely administration of the test. Since the People failed to establish that notifying the defendant of her attorney’s appearance would, in fact, have interfered with the timely administration of the chemical breath test, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of her omnibus motion which was to suppress the results of that test. People v Washington, 2013 NY Slip Op 02600, 2011-07259, Ind No 2510/10, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

SUPPRESS

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy