NJ Case Law - State v. Ugrovics

Nature of Case
Admissibility of the results of an Alcotest administered to defendant in connection with his DWI charge.

Facts
On July 19, 2008, Officer Eric Hollenstein pulled over defendant Ugrovics for driving 45 in a 25 mile per hour zone. During the encounter, Hollestein noticed that Ugrovics had glassy eyes and detected an odor of alcohol. Ugrovics failed sobriety exercises and Hollenstein charged him with a DWI and arrested him. Hollenstein then took him to the police station to perform an Alcotest. The State stipulated that Hollenstein was the only witness to have observed Ugrovics for twenty minutes prior to his Alcotest. The test, performed by Officer Robert DiGirolamo, showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.13.

Procedural History
Defendant pled guilty and was convicted of DWI pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, reserving his right to challenge the results based on failure of the administrator of the test to observe him for twenty minutes prior to giving him the test. On appeal to the Law Division, the court reversed and suppressed the Alcotest reading by relying on the plain language of the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Chun, wherein it stated that:

the operator must observe the test subject for the required twenty-minute period of time to ensure that no alcohol has entered the person's mouth while he or she is awaiting the start of the testing sequence. In addition, if the arrestee swallows anything or regurgitates, or if the operator notices chewing gum or tobacco in the person's mouth, the operator is required to begin counting the twenty-minute period anew.

State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 79, 943 A.2d 114, 129 (2008).

Issue(s): Whether the required twenty minute observation of the arrestee has to be done by the administrator of the Alcotest test?

Holding
No, the state only has to present clear and convincing evidence that the arrestee has no ingested anything that would temper with the results of the Alcotest. Reversed.

Rationale
The court differentiated between what it read as the Chun court assigning responsibilities of the operator in administering the test and the State’s burden of proof at trial. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court in Chun envision a reduction in the importance of the operator of the Alcotest as the test became more routine. Thus, interpretations of Chun that place the burden of observation exclusively on the operator are improper. See also State v. Filson, 409 N.J. Super. 246 (2009).



Contact Us today for your free NJ DWI / DUI consultation.