Is It Legal for the Police to Destroy My Breath Sample?

Charges of driving under the influence implicate legal issues from proper handling of evidence to confessions to warrants. In California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984), the United States Supreme Court considered whether releasing the air from breath samples after analysis violates the accused’s right to examine any potentially exonerating evidence.

Trombetta involved several defendants arrested for driving under the influence, taken to a police station, and given breath tests. After they took the breath tests and the police analyzed and recorded the results, the police opened the breathalyzer chamber and purged out the air inside. The same is done for every breath test using a breathalyzer. The defendants attempted to prevent the prosecution from using the breath test evidence at trial, arguing that they had been denied due process.

Under the case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), criminal defendants have the right to be given any evidence that potentially could be used to prove their innocence. The prosecution cannot withhold potentially exonerating evidence from a defendant because doing so would deny the defendant due process of the law. The Trombetta defendants wanted the courts to apply this rule to breathalyzer tests and require police to retain the air used in the test. They even demonstrated that a small, inexpensive device could capture and save the air.

While the Court of Appeals, which heard the case before it went to the Supreme Court, found in favor of the defendants, the Supreme Court disagreed. It found that releasing the breath samples was not an effort to deny due process and prevent defendants from having access to evidence. The defendants had not shown that the air could potentially have proved their innocence before it was destroyed, and they had not shown that the air was the type of evidence such that the defendant could not find comparable evidence of innocence by some other means.

The outcome in Trombetta sounds a little confusing to many people because it is impossible for defendants to prove that a breath test could have had a different outcome if they cannot re-test the air. Further, defendants who are in jail after submitting to breath tests do not have the opportunity to seek out other evidence, such as another type of test. Unfortunately, since the Supreme Court’s decisions are the law of the land, law enforcement officers continue to release breath samples after analyzing the results in reliance on the Trombetta decision.

Charged with a DUI in Oklahoma after taking a breath test? Clint Patterson, Esq., of Patterson Law Firm, a former Tulsa prosecutor now using his trial experience and expert-level knowledge of DUI science to defend drivers, assesses his clients’ best options for mounting a defense. To schedule a case evaluation, visit Patterson Law Firm online or call Clint’s office at (918) 550-9175.