The Appellate Division recently held that the Control Company Temperature Probe is just as effective as the Ertco Hart Temperature Probe with regard to the Alcotest 7110 breath testing device used by the State to prosecute drunk driving cases in New Jersey. The Ertco Hart Temperature Probe, which cost the State approximately $2,000.00 per machine, was replaced by the Control Company Temperature Probe, which costs the State approximately $300 per machine. Defense counsel argued that the cheaper probe was not reliable and the State had not met its burden that the new temperature probe was scientifically reliable and therefore admissible in drunk driving prosecutions in New Jersey. Further, defense counsel argued that the Control Company calibration certificate was not one of the foundational documents originally discussed in State v. Chun and, therefore, because the Ertco Hart Calibration Certificate was not provided in discovery, that the proper foundational documents were not provided and the breath test readings were therefore not admissible. The Appellate Division considered these arguments and rejected same holding that the Ertco Hart thermometer was more accurate than the Control Company but that the difference was negligible and the breath readings are accurate.