The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Jhonn Disla, Defendant. (2026)

The defendant is accused of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (VTL § 1192 [2]), among other related offenses. The defense moves this court to find the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) invalid, and to either suppress evidence or order pretrial hearings. The People oppose, arguing that their COC and COR are valid because they have exercised due diligence, regardless of any lapses in discovery compliance, and oppose pretrial hearings as either premature or unnecessary. For the following reasons, the defense's motion to invalidate the People's COC is DENIED, further discovery compliance is ORDERED, and a combined Mapp/Huntley/Dunaway/Johnson/Atkins hearing is ORDERED.

I. Factual background

The defendant was arrested on March 15, 2026, and accused of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (VTL § 1192 [2]). He was arraigned the same day. The People filed their COC and COR on April 24, 2026. The defense conferred with the People and on April 27, 2026, requested several items of undisclosed discovery including a command log, certifications for PO Dissler and Tim Kessler, device audit trails, and a photograph taken by PO Gonzalez Ortega. The People responded that the command log request was still pending, certifications and device audit trails are not discoverable, and that they produced the photograph on April 30, 2026, along with a supplemental COC and another COR. In response, the defense filed the instant motion.

II. COC and COR Challenge

On a motion challenging a COC, this court will typically first determine whether the movant has complied with the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4) (see People v Minor, 2026 NY Slip Op 50255[U] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Next, if the motion satisfies those requirements, the court will examine the alleged discovery violations individually (People v Lodgson-McCray, 88 Misc 3d 1212[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Finally, if the court finds that any discovery violations occurred, the court will then examine the violations in the context of "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and determine whether the People nevertheless "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith" in discharging their duties (CPL § 245.50 [5], [6]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]).

The defense has satisfied the procedural requirements in CPL § 245.50 (4) by filing a timely motion with an affirmation of diligent conferral. On the merits of the COC challenge, the defense argues that the People failed to provide four pieces of police paperwork: the Intoxicated Driver Testing Unit (IDTU) command log, certifications for PO Dissler and Tim Kessler, device audit trails, and a photograph of the Portable Breath Test (PBT) taken by PO Gonzalez Ortega.

A. Evidence at issue

1. IDTU Command Log (CPL § 245.20 [1] [e])

The defense argues that, as of the filing of the instant motion, the People had failed to produce an IDTU command log. The People concede that the IDTU command log is discoverable but argue that it is duplicative or of little value given the NYPD precinct command log, activity logs, and body worn camera footage already disclosed with their COC.

The IDTU command log is discoverable under CPL § 245.20 (1) (e), which requires disclosure of "police reports, notes of police and other investigators, law enforcement agency reports, and statements, written or recorded . . ." that relate to the subject matter of the defendant's case (id.).

The People are ORDERED to produce the IDTU command log within two weeks of this decision, or file a supplemental COC describing their continued efforts to obtain the missing log.

2. PO Dissler and Mr. Kessler (CPL § 245.20 [1] [s]) Certifications

The defense argues that the People's COC was invalid because it did not disclose certifications for PO Dissler and Mr. Kessler. The People respond that these certifications are not discoverable under CPL § 245.20 (1) (s).

In cases involving allegations of driving while intoxicated, the People must disclose ". . . the certification certificate, if any, held by the operator of the machine or instrument" (CPL § 245.20 [1] [s]). Here, the People state that PO Dissler and Mr. Kessler did not participate in the defendant's breathalyzer test and were responsible only for calibrating the machine used to test the defendant. CPL § 245.20 (1) (s) requires the People to disclose, in relevant part, ". . . all records of calibration, certification, inspection, repair or maintenance of machines and instruments utilized to perform any scientific tests and experiments, including [ ] any test of a person's breath, blood, urine or saliva . . . including . . . the certification of all reference standards and the certification certificate, if any, held by the operator of the machine or instrument." A plain reading of the statute supports the inference that "the operator of the machine or instrument" refers to the singular person who conducted the "test of a person's breath, blood, urine or saliva". The statute does not require the "certification certificate" for anyone who conducted the "calibration, certification, inspection, repair or maintenance of machines and instruments" used to test the defendant; it only makes discoverable the records themselves. Therefore, the certifications for PO Disller and Mr. Kessler, who calibrated the machine used on the night of the defendant's breath test, are not automatically discoverable.

3. Device Audit Trails

The defense argues that the People must disclose device audit trails for the body worn cameras used during the defendant's arrest (People v Champion, 81 Misc 3d 292 [Crim Ct, NY County 2023]; People v Ballard, 82 Misc 3d 403 [Crim Ct, Queens County 2023]). The People respond that this type of evidence is not automatically discoverable (People v Aca, 234 NYS 3d 925 [Crim Ct, NY County 2025]).

Audit trails maintained by the NYPD, created in connection with the defendant's arrest, and reflecting police conduct during that arrest, are discoverable (CPL § 245.20 [1] [e]). Depending on their contents, the audit trails may also be discoverable as impeachment material (CPL § 245.20 [1] [k]) or as evidence that may support a defense to the charged offenses (CPL § 245.20 [1] [u] [i] [B]). Additionally, absent controlling case law as to whether an item is automatically discoverable, the People are instructed to presume disclosure (CPL § 245.20 [7]).

Therefore, the People are ORDERED to produce the device audit trails within two weeks of this decision.

4. Photograph taken by PO Gonzalez Ortega (CPL §§ 245.20 [1] [e], [h])

Lastly, the defense argues that the People's belated disclosure of a photograph taken by PO Gonzalez Ortega of the PBT used during the defendant's arrest invalidates the COC. The People do not contest that the photograph is discoverable. They argue, however, that the photograph's existence was not readily apparent when they filed their April 24, 2026, COC. According to the People, PO Gonzalez Ortega took the photograph with a cellphone outside the view of the body worn camera, and the only indication that a photograph had been taken was the sound made by the cellphone. Additionally, the People argue that the photograph is duplicative of images captured by the body worn camera.

PO Gonzalez Ortega's photograph is discoverable pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20 (1) (e) and (h).

B. Validity of the People's COC and COR

The court must assess each of the contested items of discovery within the context of "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and determine whether the People nevertheless "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith" in discharging their duties (CPL § 245.50 [5], [6]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]). The court will examine the People's efforts within the factors listed in Bay and CPL § 245.50 (5) (a).

In this case, the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations included steps to gather discovery on March 16, 19, 20, 2026, and April 1, 22, 23, 2026. The People disclosed a total of 209 items when they filed their COC. They requested a copy of the IDTU log prior to filing their COC and were informed by PO Gonzalez Ortega that it was unavailable but that another officer would be able to retrieve it at a later time. The People notified the defendant of the missing IDTU log and explained that their request for the item remained pending. The existence of the photograph taken by PO Gonzalez Ortega was not readily apparent, the photograph was duplicative of images captured by the body worn camera, and the People promptly remedied the omission after conferring with the defense.

What remain are two items that the parties dispute are discoverable. As discussed above, the certifications requested by the defense are not automatically discoverable, whereas the device audit trails are. On balance, the factors set forth in CPL § 245.50 (5) (a) and Bay demonstrate that the People exercised due diligence despite their failure to disclose the device audit trails and police photograph with their COC. The People's efforts to gather discovery, the 209 items disclosed in comparison to the items omitted, the duplicative nature of one of those items, and their efforts to remedy the discovery lapses all weigh in favor of a finding of due diligence. The People's identification of the outstanding IDTU command log further supports that finding.

For these reasons, the defense's motion to invalidate the People's COC and COR is DENIED.

III. Speedy Trial

The defendant is charged with an A misdemeanor and no felonies, and the People are required to announce their readiness for trial within ninety days of the commencement of the criminal action (CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]). The People incorrectly state that the defendant was arraigned on March 16, 2026, and calculate 39 days of chargeable speedy trial time. Instead, the accusatory instrument was filed, and the defendant was arraigned on March 15, 2026. The People were not ready for trial until they filed their COC and COR on April 24, 2026. Therefore, a period of 40 days is charged (CPL § 245.50 [3]).

IV. Pre-trial Hearings, Brady and Reciprocal Discovery

The defense moves for suppression of statements and physical evidence, or in the alternative for suppression hearings. The People oppose, arguing that all police conduct was lawful.

A Mapp/Huntley/Dunaway/Atkins and Johnson hearings are ORDERED. Pretrial voluntariness and Sandoval hearings are reserved for decision by the trial court.

The defense also moves for further orders to comply with Brady disclosures. That request is DENIED, and the People are reminded of their obligations under CPL §§ 245.20 (1) (k), (2) and Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]).

The People move for reciprocal discovery, and the defense is ORDERED to comply with CPL § 245.50 (2) once they have received all outstanding discovery from the People as ordered above.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: August 12, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.