Opinion ID: 1989907
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Foundational Documents

Text: In addition to the requirement relating to the operator's credentials, however, we next consider the Crawford -based challenge to the twelve foundational documents, relating to the good working order of the device, that the Special Master has recommended be produced and admitted into evidence. These documents fall into two categories: (1) documents directly evidencing the good working order of the machine as of the time of the test, including: the most recent calibration record, the most recent new standard solution report, and the certificate of analysis of the 0.10 simulator solution used in the control tests; and (2) documents evidencing the accuracy of the devices used and chemical composition of the solutions used to routinely test and calibrate the machine, including the analysis of all of the solutions used to test linearity, the documents attesting to the accuracy of the devices used in the simulator, and the certificates of accuracy of the simulator and temperature probes. As a threshold matter, we perceive no shortcoming, from a constitutional perspective, with respect to any of this large group of foundational documents that the Special Master identified as prerequisites to a finding of guilt. All of the twelve documents that the Special Master identified qualify as business records in the traditional sense. For purposes of the hearsay exception, we can describe all of these documents as being records of tests of the device, or of the simulator unit that is used to calibrate the device, or of the chemical composition of the solutions used to either perform the control tests or calibrate the machine. Although these are part and parcel of ensuring that the machine is in good working order, from the perspective of the hearsay analysis, we do not regard them as being anything other than business records that are ordinarily reliable. We reach this conclusion notwithstanding the arguments raised by defendants to the effect that any document prepared by either the State Police or Draeger, in connection with the Alcotest, should be viewed with suspicion. In part, defendants' concerns pre-suppose that these documents are similar to affidavits or include statements by their preparers. There is, however, nothing in this record that suggests that any of these foundational documents is subject to manipulation by the preparer. Nor do we reach a different conclusion on the question of whether they fall within the ambit of that which Crawford teaches us is testimonial and therefore requires an opportunity for cross-examination. In this, we find accord with the great majority of the jurisdictions that have considered this, or similar, questions relating to foundation documents for scientific testing devices. See Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182, 129 P. 3d 471, 476-77 (App.2006) (holding that maintenance and calibration records for breath testing machine are routine business records that are not testimonial); Rackoff v. State, 281 Ga. 306, 637 S.E. 2d 706, 707, 709 (2006) (holding that inspection certifications are business records and are not testimonial); People v. Kim, 368 Ill.App. 3d 717, 307 Ill.Dec. 92, 859 N.E. 2d 92, 93-94 (2006), appeal denied, 224 Ill.2d 589, 312 Ill.Dec. 660, 871 N.E. 2d 60 (2007) (holding that affidavit certifying that device was tested is non-testimonial); Jarrell v. State, 852 N.E. 2d 1022, 1026 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (holding that a breath test device certification is not testimonial); Napier v. State, 820 N.E. 2d 144, 149 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (holding that inspection and operator certifications are not testimonial); Commonwealth v. Walther, 189 S.W. 3d 570, 575 (Ky.2006) (holding that notations regarding maintenance and testing of device are not testimonial); State v. Fischer, 272 Neb. 963, 726 N.W. 2d 176, 181-83 (2007) (holding that a simulator solution certificate is not testimonial); People v. Lebrecht, 13 Misc. 3d 45, 823 N.Y.S. 2d 824, 826-27 (Sup.2006) (holding that calibration/maintenance report and simulator solution certification are not testimonial); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1, 125 P. 3d 15, 18-20 (2005), review denied, 340 Or. 308, 132 P. 3d 28 (2006) (holding that certificates of accuracy are not testimonial). But see Shiver v. State, 900 So. 2d 615, 618 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2005) (holding that breath test affidavit, including portion used to show that device had required maintenance, is testimonial). To be sure, some of these documents and certificates are prepared by the police, but none of them relates to or reports a past fact and none of them is generated or prepared in order to establish any fact that is an element of the offense. See Davis, supra, 547 U.S. at 821-24, 126 S.Ct. at 2273-74, 165 L.Ed. 2d at 237. The fact that they may be used to demonstrate that a device, which was used to conduct the breath tests for a particular defendant, was in good working order does not transform them into evidence of an element of the offense nor make them testimonial in the constitutional sense. We perceive both in the Constitution itself and in Crawford, ample room for admissibility of these foundational documents consistent with protecting defendants' rights. Although we therefore conclude that they would all be admissible within the confines of the Constitution, we will not adopt the Special Master's recommendation and require that they all be offered into evidence routinely. Indeed, as the State has correctly pointed out, many of the documents on the Special Master's list of foundational proofs are tests of tests and, therefore, are too attenuated to require that they be admitted as part of the evidence. We include in that category all of the documents relating to the working order of the simulator, the reports of the solutions used during simulation and calibration, the certificate of accuracy of the simulator used to calibrate the device, and the temperature probe documents. Although, as all parties agree, these documents should continue to be produced in discovery, [47] they are not fundamentally a part of demonstrating that the particular device was in good working order. [48] The foundational documents that we conclude need to be entered into evidence therefore are few. They are: (1) the most recent calibration report prior to a defendant's test, with part I  control tests, part II  linearity tests, and the credentials of the coordinator who performed the calibration; (2) the most recent new standard solution report prior to a defendant's test; and (3) the certificate of analysis of the 0.10 simulator solution used in a defendant's control tests. Absent a pre-trial challenge to the admissibility of the AIR based on one of the other foundational documents produced in discovery, we perceive of no reason to require that they be made a part of the record routinely.