prepared, to an extent, in recognition of their necessity in the event of litigation and constituting a part of the foundational predicate for the admission of BAC test evidence, the certificates did not result from structured police questioning, they were not created at official request “to gather incriminating evidence against a particular individual.” [People v. Lebrecht, 13 Misc.3d 45, 823 N.Y.S.2d 824, 827-28 (App. Term 2006) (internal citations omitted).] Finally, we note that the Law Division reached a similar conclusion in State v. Godshalk, 381 N.J.Super. 326, 333, 885 A.2d 969 (Law Div.2005). We approve the holding in Godshalk to the extent that it is consistent with the conclusion we reach here. Affirmed. 1 See Neal v. State, 281 Ga.App. 261, 635 S.E.2d 864, 866 (2006) (<HOLDING>): Jarrell v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1022, 1026-27
holding that the certifications of accuracy of the breathalyzer machine are nontestimonial business records free from confrontation clause scrutiny holding certificates of inspection of a breathalyzer were nontestimonial business records holding that records of a criminal defendants previous convictions in state court are nontestimonial holding that driving records were nontestimonial holding that to the extent medical records may be properly categorized as business records such records are properly categorized as nontestimonial