. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida State Destruction of Evidence Case Review

Nothing has changed the dynamic of a Florida DUI case more than the advent and use of video in DUI investigations. These days, most if not all Florida DUI investigators are equipped with video cameras. These cameras are used to obtain evidence of the suspect’s driving and performance on field sobriety tests. However, from time to time, especially in larger jurisdictions, these videos are lost or destroyed and therefore cannot be used by the Defense in the case. So what happens when a DUI video is lost or destroyed?

In 1990, the Florida Court of Appeals for the Second District (2nd DCA) rendered a key decision on this matter in State v. Powers, 555 So.2d 888 (2 ACD, 1990). The Powers case did not actually involve the destruction of evidence. Instead, the issue before the court was whether or not the state was required to videotape a DUI investigation. The crux of Power’s argument was that his due process rights were violated because a video of his performance in field sobriety tests would, had it done so, have proven or supported his claim of innocence. He also argued that the particular law enforcement agency had adopted a policy of bad faith by not videotaping investigations. The 2nd DCA ruled against Powers stating that “the motorist’s due process rights were not violated as a result of the failure to videotape the investigation.” State vs. Powers, 555 So.2d 888. (2 DCA, 1990).

However, the 2nd DCA decided to expose the issue further and ultimately drew a clear line between failing to collect evidence and actually destroying evidence. The second DCA opined that “a defendant’s due process rights are violated, regardless of good or bad faith on the part of the prosecution, if the prosecution suppresses favorable material evidence.” Const. USCA Amend. 5, 14. State v. Canada. Powers, 555 So.2d 888 (2 ACD, 1990). In addition, “although the due process rights of the accused are not violated if the loss or destruction of evidence would not have been beneficial, thus demonstrating lack of prejudice, the State has the burden of demonstrating lack of prejudice.” Const. USCA Amend. 5, 14. State v. Canada. Powers, 555 So.2d 888 (2 ACD, 1990). They finally opined that “In a case where the destruction of evidence is a flagrant and deliberate act done in bad faith with the intent to prejudice the defense, that alone is sufficient to justify dismissal of the charges. State v. Powers, 555 So.2d 889 (2DCA, 1990).

Therefore, a good Florida DUI attorney will always request copies of all videos and exhibits when handling a Florida DUI case. If something is missing then the State’s case can be attacked using the opinions in Powers. I agree with the 2nd DCA’s involvement in this case. It would hardly be fair to allow law enforcement to dictate what evidence a trier of fact must see.

Leave A Comment