State v Campbell DWI statute and Alcotest not unconstitutional

DWI
statute and Alcotest not unconstitutional. State v. Campbell 436 N.J.
Super. 264 (App. Div. 2014)

Defendant appeals his
conviction of drunk driving ("DWI") and the trial court's denial of
declaratory relief on his claim of unconstitutionality.

Defendant's prosecution was based upon an Alcotest
reading of his blood alcohol content ("BAC") above the per se level
of .08 prohibited by N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a). He argues that case law authorizing
the admission of Alcotest BAC results when the prerequisites for such
admissibility are shown by "clear-and-convincing" proof, coupled with
the statute's conclusively incriminating treatment of a BAC at or above .08,
improperly combine to relieve the State of its constitutional burden of proving
a driver's guilt by the more rigorous standard of proof "beyond a
reasonable doubt."

The Court rejects
defendant's claim of unconstitutionality. The argument fails to distinguish the
State's threshold burden of establishing the Alcotest's evidential
admissibility from the State's ultimate burden at trail of establishing
defendant's guilt of a per se offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if a
pretrial motion to suppress the BAC results has been denied, a defendant can
still present competing evidence or arguments at trial to persuade the court
that the testing procedures were flawed and that his guilt has not been proven
by the more stringent reasonable doubt standard.