STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK ALAN PLAWCHAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appeals a circuit court's ruling that the State's failure to preserve a breath sample violated the defendant's constitutional right to due process in a DUI case. The appellate court holds that while Brady v. Maryland prohibits suppression of material evidence, the Supreme Court's decision in California v. Trombetta establishes that the Due Process Clause does not require law enforcement to preserve breath samples for DUI tests.
The Due Process Clause does not require law enforcement agencies to preserve breath samples in order to introduce breath-analysis tests at trial. Although Brady v. Maryland prohibits intentional or negligent suppression of material evidence favorable to the accused after request, the preservation of breath samples is not constitutionally mandated.
[1] The Due Process Clause does not require law enforcement agencies to preserve breath samples to introduce breath-analysis tests at trial.
[2] The intentional or negligent suppression of material evidence favorable to the accused after a request for such evidence constitutes a denial of due process, regardless o…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The State's intentional or negligent suppression of material evidence favorable to the accused after request for such evidence constitutes a denial of due process, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”
Establishes the Brady principle that suppression of material evidence violates due process without regard to prosecutorial intent
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMark Plawchan was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. A breathalyzer test indicated a .16 blood alcohol content. Plawchan entered a p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse California V. Trombetta cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
State of Florida petitions for writ of certiorari to review the circuit court’s determination that the State’s failure to preserve a sample of Plawchan’s breath constituted suppression of evidence and a denial of constitutional due process.
Plawchan was initially charged for driving under the influence of alcohol. Breath analysis, using a device called a breathalyzer, indicated a .16 blood alcohol content. Plawchan entered a plea of nolo contendere to the amended charge of driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level, specifically reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the results of the breath analysis. The motion to suppress was based upon the State’s failure to preserve a sample of Plawchan’s breath which would be material to his defense. The breathalyzer used to test Plawchan’s blood alcohol level was not equipped to preserve breath samples. The parties stipulated that Plawchan had requested production of the breath sample, that the breath sample had not been preserved and could not be produced, and that denial of the motion to suppress was dispositive of the issue of Plawchan’s blood alcohol level. Expert testimony showed that the breathalyzer could be modified at an approximate cost of $200.00 to preserve a suspect’s breath sample for six months.
The circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, found no bad faith in the State’s failure to preserve a sample of Plawchan’s breath, rather, it was routine procedure to destroy the samples in all cases.
The circuit court determined, however, that under the circumstance that there was a scientifically approved method of preserving breath samples, the State’s failure to do so amounted to suppression and destruction of evidence in violation of Plawchan’s constitutional right to due process.
The State’s intentional or negligent suppression of material evidence favorable to the accused after request for such evidence constitutes a denial of due process, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, does not require that law enforcement agencies preserve breath samples in order to introduce breath-analysis tests at trial. California v. Trombetta, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984).
Accordingly, State of Florida’s petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the decision of the circuit court is quashed and the order of the trial court is reinstated.
SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Powers, 555 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…of the tests, the state is not obligated to take affirmative steps to preserve a blood or breath sample. See Trombetta; Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1985). See also State v. Garafola, 459 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); State v. Plawchan, 453 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We turn now to the second test conducted by the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Department, i.e., the field sobriety test. Applying the principles discussed herein, we find that the appellees’ due process rights were not violated whe…
-
Houser v. State, 456 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…HE ADOPTION OF HRS RULES RELATING THERETO MAY BE ALLOWED INTO EVIDENCE AT A TRIAL SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADOPTION OF SUCH RULES. The judgments and sentences appealed are affirmed. ERVIN, C.J., and BOOTH, J., concur. . See generally, State v. Plawchan, 453 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), applying California v. Trombetta, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984), with regard to the state’s failure to obtain a preservable breath sample for defense analysis. . But see Vela v. State, 450 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 5th…
-
State v. Garafola, 459 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…easonably available means. California v. Trombetta, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2534, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984) (footnote omitted). We join with the First District Court of Appeal in adopting the holding of California v. Trombetta. See State v. Plawchan, 453 So. 2d 496, (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Accordingly, we grant this petition for writ of certiorari and quash the orders of the circuit court and county court suppressing the evidence of the breathalyzer test results. CERTIORARI GRANTED. DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ., con…
Authorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984)