As previously reported it came to light last year that the N.J. state trooper assigned to handle the calibration and certification of the Alcotest machine in Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, Somerset and Union counties between 2008 and 2016 was found to have skipped a necessary and required temperature check while calibrating at least 3 machines (and falsified documentation indicating that the temperature check had actually been performed).
The accusation called into question any test result involving a machine which was handled by this N.J. state trooper from 2008 through 2016.
While the state has attempted to argue that the skipped procedure of the required temperature check was not scientifically necessary Judge Joseph Lisa, who was charged with investigating the matter by the N.J. State Supreme Court has disagreed in a 200 page opinion. Judge Lisa has stated that that the state failed to clearly and convincingly prove that the failure to perform the necessary testing procedure did not undermine the scientific reliability of the test results in the 20,667 cases.
In the opinion while Judge Lisa stated that the likelihood that the alleged misconduct of the trooper undermines convictions between 2008 and 2016 was "not great, but it is reasonably plausible". Therefore he found that there was substantial doubts about the reliability of the DWI test results in the 5 counties.
The matter was now go before the N.J. Supreme Court for final determination.
It is my opinion given the falsification of documents relative to the scientific reliability of the equipment used based on the fact that certain required procedural checks of the equipment may not have been performed even if not great provides a sufficient amount of doubt regarding the scientific reliability of the equipment to require that the readings in those cases be thrown out as the state has the burden of proof as to every element in their case to prove that element beyond a reasonable doubt in that burden of proof can no longer be met.
Please keep reviewing our page for further information regarding this extremely important matter which may affect at least the driving abstract of many people which could have a significant impact as to whether or not somebody is a subsequent offender and thus subject to a two-year loss of license on a 2nd offense or a ten-year loss of license and 180 days in jail on a 3rd offense. What other relief the court might order is currently still unknown and how such relief might be effectuated.