No automatic right for DWI defendant to inspect inside of police
station State v Carrero
__ NJ Super. ___ (App. Div. 2012)
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.
