Document: 467 U.S. 479104 S. Ct. 252881 L. Ed. 2d 413 CALIFORNIAv.TROMBETTA ET AL. No. 83-305 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES April 18, 1984, ArguedJune 11, Decided CERTIORARI TO APPEAL CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT. 142 Cal. App. 3d 138, 190 Rptr. 319, reversed and remanded. Charles R. B. Kirk, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on briefs were John K. Van De Kamp, General, William D. Stein, Assistant Gloria F. Hart, General. DeMeo respondents. brief Thomas Kenney, J. Frederick Haley, A. Pettis. * Briefs amici curiae urging reversal filed State Minnesota et al. by Hubert H. Humphrey III, Minnesota, James Early, Special Fabel, Jim Smith, Florida, Linley E. Pearson, Indiana, Edwin Lloyd Tittman, Mississippi, Mike Greely, Montana; Appellate Committee California District Attorney's Association Vance, Jr.; National Attorneys Association, Inc., David Crump, Wayne W. Schmidt, P. Manak, Miller, Jr. George Schraer Lisa Short a Public Defender as amicus affirmance. North Carolina Rufus Edmisten, Isaac T. Avery General; County Los Angeles Robert Philibosian, Harry Sondheim, Messer; Defender's Albert Menaster, M. Thornbury, Ephraim Margolin. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. O'CONNOR, concurring opinion, post, p. 491. 1 The Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment requires to disclose criminal defendants favorable evidence that is material either guilt or punishment. United States v. Agurs, 427 97 (1976); Brady Maryland, 373 83 (1963). This case raises question whether also demands preserve potentially exculpatory behalf defendants. In particular, presented law enforcement agencies breath samples suspected drunken drivers in order results breath-analysis tests be admissible prosecutions. 2 Omicron Intoxilyzer (Intoxilyzer) device used measure concentration alcohol blood motorists driving while under influence intoxicating liquor. n1 analyzes suspect's breath. To operate device, officers follow these procedures: 3 "Prior any test, purged pumping clean air through it until readings 0.00 are obtained. test sample 'alveolar' (deep lung) air; assure such obtained, subject required blow into intoxilyzer at constant pressure period several seconds. A captured intoxilyzer's chamber infrared light sense level. Two taken, result each indicated printout card. two must register within 0.02 other court. After with then checked reading zero alcohol. machine calibrated weekly, calibration results, well portion samples, available defendant." 141-142, 321 (1983) (citations omitted). 4 unrelated incidents 1980 1981, respondents this was stopped suspicion highways. Each respondent submitted an test. n2 registered blood-alcohol substantially higher than 0.10 percent. Under time, percent concentrations presumed intoxicated. Veh. Code Ann. § 23126(a)(3) (West 1971) (amended 1981). Respondents all charged intoxicated violation 23102 5 Prior trial Municipal Court, motion suppress ground arresting had failed respondents' Although preservation technically feasible, n3 do not ordinarily made no effort so cases. claimed that, been preserved, he would have able impeach incriminating results. All motions denied. Ward Berry their cases police records convicted. subsequently petitioned Court Appeal writs habeas corpus. Trombetta Cox did submit trial. They sought direct appeal from orders, appeals eventually transferred consolidated petitions. n4 6 ruled favor implicitly accepting useful defenses, court reviewed technologies determined capacity 3d, Rptr., 320-321. Relying heavily Supreme Court's decision People Hitch, 12 641, 527 361 (1974), concluded: "Due process simply where collected state, intoxilyzer, testing establish rigorous systematic procedures its equivalent use 144, 323. n5 granted new trials, ordered admitted against unsuccessfully certiorari review We certiorari, 464 1037 (1984), now reverse. II 7 Amendment, prosecutions comport prevailing notions fundamental fairness. long interpreted standard fairness require afforded meaningful opportunity present complete defense. safeguard right, has developed "what might loosely called area constitutionally guaranteed access evidence." Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 858, 867 (1982). Taken together, group constitutional privileges delivers hands accused, thereby protecting innocent erroneous conviction ensuring integrity our justice system. 8 most rudimentary access-to-evidence impose upon prosecution obligation report defendant whenever government witnesses lie oath. Napue Illinois, 360 264, 269-272 (1959); see Mooney Holohan, 294 103 (1935). But entitled much more protection perjury. protected privilege request obtain relevant punishment imposed. U.S., 87. Even absence specific request, duty turn over raise reasonable doubt about defendant's guilt. 112. reveal contents plea agreements key witnesses, Giglio States, 405 150 (1972), some circumstances may identity undercover informants who possess critical defense, Roviaro 353 53 (1957). 9 Less clear extent which imposes additional responsibility guaranteeing beyond government's possession. On few occasions, we suggested Federal Government transgress limitations if exercised sovereign powers hamper preparation For instance, Marion, 404 307, 324 (1971), Lovasco, 431 783, 795, n. 17 (1977), intimated due occur delayed indictment ability mount effective defense impaired. Similarly, supra, acknowledged could offend Fifth if, deporting potential diminished put n6 873. 10 have, however, never squarely addressed take affirmative steps doctrinal development reflects, part, difficulty developing rules deal destroyed prosecutorial neglect oversight. Whenever permanently lost, courts face treacherous task divining import materials whose unknown and, very often, disputed. Cf. 870. Moreover, fashioning remedies illegal destruction can pose troubling choices. nondisclosure cases, grant previously suppressed introduced. when Constitution, choose between barring further suppressing -- State's probative evidence. 11 One discussed constraints Government's failure Killian 368 231 (1961). Killian, petitioner convicted giving false testimony 18 U. C. 1001. element investigatory prepared Bureau Investigation. Solicitor conceded prior petitioner's trial, I. agents preliminary notes they interviewing witnesses. helpful his violated destroying While denying contributed rise level violation: "If agents' . only purpose transferring data thereon , having served purpose, good faith accord normal practices, constitute impermissible nor deprive right." Id., 242. 13 many respects instant reminiscent States. came possession authorities, limited providing raw Intoxilyzer. n7 itself but rather obtained samples. As wanted final reports, here seek challenge produced 14 Given precedents area, cannot agree retain constitutes Constitution. begin with, authorities destroy calculated circumvent disclosure requirements established Maryland progeny. failing respondents, acting "in practice." record contains allegation official animus towards conscious 15 More importantly, California's policy preserving without defect. Whatever Constitution evidence, expected play significant role n8 meet materiality, 109-110, both value apparent before destroyed, nature unable comparable reasonably means. Neither conditions met facts case. 16 conceivably dispassionate lead one conclude chances extremely low preserved exculpatory. accuracy certified Department Health. n9 protect suspects malfunctions, include independent measurements (which closely correlated admissible) bracketed blank runs designed ensure traces previous tests. See 481-482. tiny fraction confirm Intoxilyzer's determination high time Once legally drunk, likely provide inculpatory n10 assume inaccurate therefore exculpatory, does alternative means demonstrating innocence. identified number ways malfunction: faulty calibration, extraneous interference measurements, operator error. Brief 32-34; Amici Curiae 25-40. perfectly capable raising issues resort gives inspect machine's weekly calibrations. utilized reliability. improper parties sources interfering results: radio waves chemicals appear those dieting. affected factors, remains possible introduce dieting conducted near source waves. Finally, error, retains right cross-examine officer administered attempt doubts mind factfinder properly administered. n11 III conclude, therefore, n12 Accordingly, judgment reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 19 It ordered. 20 JUSTICE concurring. 21 Rules concerning generally matters federal constitutional, law. Augenblick, 393 348, 352-353 (1969). render fundamentally unfair, thus inadmissible accused. 356. employ methods concern, because persons know rights existence way affects convictions actually I understand state well-settled propositions. join judgment. 22 -------------- Footnotes 23 Law obliged equipment approved Admin. 1221 (1976). devices employing variety technologies, List Instruments Related Accessories Approved Breath Alcohol Analysis (Dec. 20, 1979), reprinted 238-247, popular model, Petitioner 6, 6. 24 law, given choice urine 13353 1971 Supp. 1984). Suspects refuse liable licenses suspended. Ibid. 25 Health known Intoximeter Field Crimper-Indium Tube Encapsulation Kit (Kit), 247. Kit, suspect breathe directly indium tube, preserves three separate chambers. 142, (1983). trapped later determine laboratory instrument Gas Chromatograph Intoximeter, 242-243. Because same See, Other devices, similar function attached collect purges, 18-19, none yet received approval Health, Reply 3-4. 26 expressed suppression orders ultimately dismissed. 140, 143, 320, court, merits claims jurisdiction appeals. Cox, affirming order, reviewable 28 1257(3). Cf., e. g., Michigan Clifford, 287 (1984). 27 Hitch involved another concentrations. bubbles glass ampoule containing special change colors depending amount blood. 644, 2d, 363-364. keeping procedures, officials discarded after completed testing, even though saved retesting defendant. decisions (1963), 150, 153-154 concluded implicated intentionally destroys proved 645-650, 364-370. noteworthy extrapolated Brady's requirement part prosecutors Note, Right Independent Testing: New Preservation Evidence Doctrine, 75 Colum. Rev. 1355, 1364-1368 (1975); cf. Bryant, 132, 141, 439 F.2d 642, 651 (1971) (Wright, J.) (Government make "'earnest efforts' crucial find them once discovery made"). years, there uncertainty extend 52 666, 125 341 (1975), panel refused reduce preservable form ampoules created Hitch. declined reasoned specimens (such Indium 3, supra), 143-144, 322-323. 29 related arising Sixth Amendments, recognized call own testified behalf. Davis Alaska, 415 308 (1974); Washington Texas, 388 (1967). 30 accept Appeal's conclusion procedure brought officials. actual 5, supra. 31 imposed (1976), rejected notion "prosecutor routinely deliver entire file counsel." 111; Moore 408 786, 795 (1972) ("We detailed accounting work case"). 32 passed Highway Traffic Safety Administration Transportation. 38 Fed. Reg. 30459 (1973); Flores, Results First Semi-Annual Qualification Testing Devices Measure (Dept. Transportation 1975). 33 materiality reliability itself. degree depends how reliable is. correlation suggests attack sufficiency underlying all, truly prone readings, insufficient doubt. Jackson Virginia, 443 307 (1979). 34 themselves on-the-scene electing tests, 2, automatically Respondents, informed difference various asked select among 13353.5 (enacted 1983) (requiring will retained tests). governmental anomalous permit justify actions relying procedural alternatives available, irrelevant inquiry permits accused driver second experts, since aware alternative. 35 legislatures, course, remain free adopt safeguards governing admissibility scientific Lauderdale State, 548 376 (Alaska 1976); City Lodi Hine, 107 Wis. 118, 318 N. 383

Category: 3