Opinion ID: 1345955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arizona Case Law Regarding Preservation of Breath Samples

Text: Baca was the first Arizona case to require that police provide a DUI suspect with a separate sample of breath. The instrument used in Baca was a gas chromatograph intoximeter (GCI), which, unlike the Intoxilyzer but like the Breathalyzer, destroys the breath sample it tests. The issue in Baca was whether, when a sample of a suspect's breath is consumed in the analysis, another sample must be taken and preserved for the private use of the suspect. Id. at 354, 604 P.2d at 618. The court concluded: [T]he right to test incriminating evidence where the evidence is completely destroyed by testing becomes all the more important because the defense has little or no recourse to alternate scientific means of contesting the test results, and therefore, when requested, the police must take and preserve a separate sample for the suspect by means of a field collection unit. Id. at 356, 604 P.2d at 620 (emphasis added). Subsequent cases expanded the Baca requirement. In State v. City Court, the court of appeals required arresting officers to advise persons charged with driving while intoxicated of their right to have a breath sample preserved for independent testing, whether the testing device used is a Breathalyzer or an Intoxilyzer. 130 Ariz. 285, 286, 635 P.2d 878, 879 (Ct.App. 1981). Although generally the state is not obligated to assist a suspect in gathering potentially exculpatory evidence, this court determined that the unique circumstances surrounding DUI arrests justifies an exception. Montano, 149 Ariz. at 389, 719 P.2d at 275. Under Baca, the state had only a limited duty to inform the defendant that a second breath sample will be provided to him upon request when the state invoked the implied consent statute by administering a breath test. Id. Because the only objective evidence in a DUI case is inherently evanescent, [and] is virtually dispositive of guilt or innocence, we held in Montano that due process requires the state to inform a suspect of his right to an independent test of blood alcohol content, even where the state does not invoke the implied consent law and conduct its own chemical test. Id. [4] The most recent case to discuss breath capture procedures is State v. Harrison, 157 Ariz. 184, 755 P.2d 1172 (Ct.App. 1988), which involved the reliability of the second sample provided to DUI defendants. The court of appeals held that, since one of the purposes of requiring that a second sample be provided is to impeach the state's test, defendants must be able to rely on the test results obtained from those samples. Therefore, the state must provide a reasonably reliable sample. Id. at 186, 755 P.2d at 1172.