Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

People v. Brol – Case Brief Summary (New York)

In People v. Brol (81 AD2d 739, 740, 438 NYS2d 424 [4th Dept1981]), before the Court was the issue of the competency of the evidence.

The appellate court held that "unless the test is taken within the two-hour time limit ... the results are not competent evidence and may not be received in evidence against the operator, and the operator's refusal to take the test is also admissible in court against him" (Brol at 740).

The appellate court went on to say that "but if the test's results are incompetent if the test is not administered within the two-hour limit, evidence of the refusal is similarly incompetent evidence against defendant unless obtained within two hours of the arrest." (Brol at 740 .)