State v. Z. P. – NJ Municipal Court Dismisses DWI Charges Following Technical Challenges to Alcotest 9510 Accuracy and Sobriety Test Validity

In State v. Z. P. (January 13, 2026) 

New Jersey — A local court has dismissed driving while intoxicated (DWI) and related summonses against a motorist, identified as Z.P.,the defenses centered on the technical reliability of breath testing equipment and the interpretation of field sobriety tests. The defendant, Z.P., was found guilty of a single count of Reckless Driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-96), while the more serious per-se alcohol charges were dismissed.

Technical Tolerance Successfully Argued

The defense successfully challenged the admissibility of the Alcotest 9510 results, which initially reported a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .13%. Although a state-provided “Tolerance Worksheet” suggested the results were within an acceptable range, a closer analysis revealed that a specific reading of 0.144% BAC may have fallen outside the upper tolerance limit of 0.1443% BAC. The tolerance worksheet fails to account for the fourth digit in the percentage analysis.

The court agreed that because the fourth decimal place of the reading was unknown, the State could not establish that the result met the strict tolerance requirements set forth in State v. Chun, or State v. Rivera. Consequently, the Alcohol Influence Report (AIR) was deemed inadmissible.

Sobriety Test Performance Challenged

While the investigating officer alleged that Z.P. failed the Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs), the defense successfully argued that Z.P. actually met the objective “passing” criteria defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The defense showed several factors that compromised the reliability of the officer’s assessment:

• Improper Instructions: The officer failed to provide standardized instructions, such as telling the motorist to “watch your feet at all times” during the Walk and Turn test.

• Environmental & Physical Factors: The tests were conducted barefoot on a roadside shortly after Z.P. was involved in a rollover accident.

• Pre-existing Conditions: Z.P. had reported prior injuries to his knees and ankles from a skateboarding accident, which the defense argued accounted for any perceived lack of balance.

Ultimate Outcome

“The integrity of a DWI prosecution relies entirely on the strict adherence to procedural safeguards,” stated the defense expert report. “If any one of the standardized elements is changed, the validity is compromised”. Attorney Dan.