SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3345-18T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GEORGE GINDHART, 

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

Submitted March 3, 2020 – Decided May 11, 2020

Before Judges Gilson and Rose.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Cape May County, Municipal Appeal No. 12-

11-17. 

Sitzler & Sitzler, attorneys for appellant (James J. 

Gerrow, Jr., on the brief).

Jeffrey H. Sutherland, Cape May County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (James E. Moore, Assistant 

Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-3345-18T4

Following a trial in the municipal court and a trial de novo on the 

municipal court record in the Law Division, defendant George Gindhart was 

convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and sentenced 

as a third-time offender. As part of his sentence, the court revoked defendant's 

driver's license for ten years, required him to serve 180 days in the county jail, 

ninety of which could be served in an in-patient program, and referred him to 

the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center.

Defendant appeals and argues that the Alcotest, on which his conviction 

was based, was unreliable for two reasons. First, he contends that the testing 

procedures were not video recorded. Second, he suffers from gastroesophageal 

reflux disease (GERD) and argues that condition may have contaminated the 

breath samples. We reject both these arguments and affirm.

In the Law Division, Judge Sarah Beth Johnson made detailed findings of 

fact, which she set forth in a thorough written opinion issued on January 9, 2019. 

Our review of the record establishes that all those findings are supported by 

substantial credible evidence in the record. Accordingly, we need not detail the 

facts and will only give a brief summary. 

On January 28, 2016, defendant had two encounters with Police Officer 

Thomas Flounders and Police Officer Jerald Garriott in North Wildwood. He 
3

A-3345-18T4

was first found in his car outside his vacation home at approximately 1:00 a.m. 

in the morning. Both officers smelled alcohol and noted his slurred speech. 

Officer Flounders also observed that defendant had bloodshot eyes. Officer 

Garriott directed defendant to go into his home and not to drive. Approximately 

one hour later, Officer Flounders saw defendant's car driving on a road without 

its headlights on. The officer followed the car and saw it run a stop sign. Officer 

Flounders then signaled for the car to pull over and called Officer Garriott to 

join him. The officers again noted that defendant smelled of alcohol, had slurred 

speech, and bloodshot eyes. Defendant was directed to engage in several field 

sobriety tests that he failed. Accordingly, the officers arrested defendant on 

suspicion of driving while under the influence of alcohol.

At the police station, defendant agreed to take an Alcotest. Officer 

Garriott then conducted the appropriate pre-testing procedures, including 

observing defendant for twenty minutes. The test results showed that defendant 

had a blood alcohol concentration of .13 percent. 

At the trial in the municipal court four witnesses testified. The State

called Officer Garriott and Officer Flounders and defendant testified and called 

an expert witness. The municipal judge and the Law Division judge found both 

officers credible. Both judges also found that defendant was not credible in 
4

A-3345-18T4

some of his testimony and was particularly not credible in describing the 

symptoms and effect of his GERD.

As already noted, on this appeal defendant makes two arguments. First, 

he contends that we should create a new rule requiring that the administration 

of Alcotests be video-recorded and, if they are not, an adverse inference should 

arise that the procedures were not properly followed. Second, defendant argues 

that the Law Division erred in not accepting his testimony and his expert's 

testimony that his GERD may have contaminated the Alcotest. As previously 

noted, we are not persuaded by either of these arguments. 

We apply a deferential standard of review when reviewing the factual 

findings and credibility findings following a trial de novo in the Law Division. 

State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470-71 (1999); State v. Adubato, 420 N.J. Super. 

167, 176 (App. Div. 2011). Accordingly, we will not disturb factual findings 

that are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. Adubato, 420 

N.J. Super. at 176 (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)). Where 

both a municipal judge and a Law Division judge have found a witness credible, 

we owe particularly strong deference to the Law Division judge's credibility 

findings. Locurto, 157 N.J. at 474 (citing Midler v. Heinowitz, 10 N.J. 123, 

128-29 (1952)). We review the Law Division judge's legal conclusions de novo. 
5

A-3345-18T4

See State v. Rivera, 411 N.J. Super. 492, 497 (App. Div. 2010) (citation 

omitted). 

Defendant's first argument presents a question of law. He argues that we 

should create a new rule and require the State to videotape the administration of 

an Alcotest if video equipment is available. If the State fails to create such a 

video record, defendant contends that an adverse inference should arise that the 

State did not fully comply with the procedural requirements established in State 

v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008). In making his argument, defendant tries to draw 

an analogy to the rules requiring or permitting contemporaneous electronic

recording of custodial interrogations and out-of-court identifications. See R.

3:17 (requiring electronic recording of custodial interrogations when the suspect 

is charged with certain crimes such as murder and kidnapping); R. 3:11 

(allowing electronic recording of out-of-court identifications "if feasible"). 

We reject defendant's argument for several reasons. First and foremost, 

our Supreme Court has never required such video recordings of Alcotests. As 

demonstrated in Chun and its progeny, the procedures for the Alcotest have been 

zealously debated and rigorously reviewed. See State v. Cassidy, 235 N.J. 482 

(2018); State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368, 383-84 (2015) (holding that Alcotest 

readings are reliable and laying out the "mandatory guidelines for establishing 
6

A-3345-18T4

the Alcotest's reliability"). The Court has imposed numerous procedural 

requirements but never required the recording of the administration of the 

Alcotest.

Second, we discern no good public policy reason for requiring such a 

recording procedure. The State has the burden to establish that the Alcotest is 

properly administered and the equipment is properly tested and in working 

order. See State v. Campbell, 436 N.J. Super. 264, 270 (App. Div. 2014) 

(quoting Chun, 194 N.J. at 134). Adding a recording requirement would impose 

a burden with no showing that it would improve the administration of the test. 

Moreover, it would run counter to the well-established policy of New Jersey 

discouraging drunk drivers by imposing a procedure that has no clear benefit. 

Finally, as demonstrated by this case, defendant's right to a proper 

administration of the test is protected by the current procedures and there is no 

need for an additional requirement. Judge Johnson found that the State had 

presented clear and convincing evidence that Officer Garriott was properly 

certified to perform such tests, observed defendant continuously for twenty 

minutes immediately prior to taking his breath samples, and credibly testified 

that defendant did not put anything in his mouth, hiccup, belch, or do anything 

else that would have required restarting the observation period. Accordingly, 
7

A-3345-18T4

the officer conducting the Alcotest complied with all the procedures required by 

Chun. 

Defendant's second argument is essentially a fact argument. Defendant 

contends that he suffers from GERD and that condition may have contaminated 

his breath samples. Judge Johnson rejected that argument based on factual 

findings. First, she agreed with the municipal judge and found defendant to be 

incredible regarding his descriptions of his symptoms of GERD at the time of 

his arrest. Second, Judge Johnson rejected defendant's expert's testimony. In 

that regard, defendant called Dr. Lance Gooberman as an expert witness. Dr. 

Gooberman is a medical doctor who is a general practitioner specializing in 

addiction medicine with experience in dealing with the effects of alcohol and 

other drugs on the human body. 

Dr. Gooberman testified that the breath of someone suffering from GERD 

could be continuously contaminated with alcohol from the stomach and that the 

contamination might not be detected by the Alcotest. Judge Johnson rejected 

that testimony as a net opinion because it was not based on any scientifically 

reliable evidence supporting the assertion that GERD causes falsely elevated 

Alcotest readings. In making that finding, Judge Johnson noted that Dr. 

Gooberman acknowledged that he had performed no scientific research himself 
8

A-3345-18T4

and he was relying on a 1987 study from Australia that predated the special 

master's report leading to the Chun decision. 

We agree with Judge Johnson that Dr. Gooberman's testimony in this 

matter was a net opinion not supported by scientifically reliable data or research. 

See N.J.R.E. 703; State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473, 494-95 (2006). Indeed, Dr. 

Gooberman acknowledged that his opinion that defendant's Alcotest reading was 

consistent with alcohol contamination from GERD was unsupported by 

scientific research. 

Affirmed.