No automatic right for DWI defendant to inspect inside of police
station State v Carrero
State v Baluski
A-3232-11T3/
A-4319-11T3 (CONSOLIDATED)
The court reviewed discovery orders separately issued in these two DWI
cases authorizing defense counsel and/or defense experts to inspect and
photograph rooms within the police stations where their respective clients
provided breath samples on the Alcotest device in order to verify that the
tests were properly administered.
In Carrero, such access was granted to help ascertain whether devices
emitting radio frequency interference (RFI) had been located in the station
within 100 feet of the testing area. In Baluski, such access was granted to
help ascertain whether the interior layout of the station physically prevented
defendant from being observed for the required twenty minutes before testing.
The court reversed the discovery orders because neither defendant has
shown a reasonable justification to conduct the requested inspection.
The court concluded that Carrero's request is insufficient in light of
the Supreme Court's binding legal and evidentiary determination in State v.
Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 89, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 825, 129 S. Ct. 158, 172 L. Ed.
2d 41 (2008), that the Alcotest is designed in a manner that is " "well
shielded from the impact of any potential
RFI," and also in light of the State's countervailing security interests
disfavoring routine civilian access to the interior of a police station.
The court concluded that Baluski's request is likewise insufficient because
he has presented no affirmative basis to believe that an officer failed to
observe him for the twenty pre-testing minutes required by Chun, supra, 194
N.J. at 79, and also in light of the State's countervailing security interests.
