Subscribe to DUI Colorado Law
Search DUI Laws
Recent DUI Articles
Yankees pitcher Joba Chamberlain arrested for DUI- Cops destroying DUI evidence before court
- College president of the year arrested for DUI
- Does your body produce alcohol naturally?
- How to get an easy DUI charge
- Arrested for DUI while you're completely sober
- How to beat your Colorado DUI arrest (Part 1)
- How much will your first DUI cost you?
- The Colorado Ignition Interlock Program
- Avoid auto-suspending your license after a DUI
Special Offers
More DUI Websites
Yankees pitcher Joba Chamberlain arrested for DUI
Sponsors:
New York Yankees pitcher Joba Chamberlain was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence, speeding and having an open container of alcohol in his 2006 BMW.
He was given a Breathalyzer test on the spot and was moved to the Cornhusker Place, a detox center in Lincoln where all the drunk drivers have an overnight visit. Another Breathalyzer test was administered there, but results are as of yet to be released. A call made to Joba's father, Harlan Chamberlain, resulted in Pops saying "no comment".
Nebraska State Patrol spokeswoman Deborah Collins said Chamberlain was stopped for speeding on U.S. 77 near his hometown of Lincoln at about 1 a.m. Saturday.
Collins said Chamberlain was taken to the Cornhusker Place Detox in Lincoln, which she said is the normal protocol. Chamberlain was lodged at the center on charges of driving under the influence, having an open container of alcohol and speeding. Collins said the county attorney likely would file formal charges Monday.
Chamberlain, 23, just completed his second season in the majors with the Yankees, compiling a 4-3 record with a 2.60 earned run average in 42 games, including 12 starts. He has been used as both a set-up man and a starter, and team chairman Hank Steinbrenner said recently that the team would probably use him as a starter in 2009.
He was given a Breathalyzer test on the spot and was moved to the Cornhusker Place, a detox center in Lincoln where all the drunk drivers have an overnight visit. Another Breathalyzer test was administered there, but results are as of yet to be released. A call made to Joba's father, Harlan Chamberlain, resulted in Pops saying "no comment".
Nebraska State Patrol spokeswoman Deborah Collins said Chamberlain was stopped for speeding on U.S. 77 near his hometown of Lincoln at about 1 a.m. Saturday.
Collins said Chamberlain was taken to the Cornhusker Place Detox in Lincoln, which she said is the normal protocol. Chamberlain was lodged at the center on charges of driving under the influence, having an open container of alcohol and speeding. Collins said the county attorney likely would file formal charges Monday.
Chamberlain, 23, just completed his second season in the majors with the Yankees, compiling a 4-3 record with a 2.60 earned run average in 42 games, including 12 starts. He has been used as both a set-up man and a starter, and team chairman Hank Steinbrenner said recently that the team would probably use him as a starter in 2009.
Cops destroying DUI evidence before court
Sponsors:
What is the single most important piece of evidence in most drunk driving cases? The Breathalyzer test. In fact, it's the ONLY evidence of the crime of driving with over .08% blood alcohol. And it's pretty important for the 'driving under the influence' charge, too: the law presumes the defendant is under the influence if the test result is .08% or higher. Evidence just doesn't get more important than that.
So, of course, the police are careful to preserve the breath sample, right? I mean, there may be some question later of whether the machine was working correctly; it would be a simple matter to save the sample so it could be tested again on another machine. And, hard to believe, but the defense may not want to just take the officer's word that he administered the test correctly and that the test results were from the defendant.
Unfortunately, the breath sample is routinely destroyed moments after it is tested. But how can this be? That's a question that was asked a few years ago by a defendant in California appealing his DUI conviction. The Court of Appeals of that state agreed and reversed the conviction:
Due process simply demands that where evidence is collected by the state, as it is with the Intoxilyzer, or any other breath testing device, law enforcement agencies must establish and follow rigorous and sytematic procedures to preserve the captured evidence or its equivalent for the use of the defendant. People v. Trombetta, 142 CalApp.3d 138 (1983).
How hard is it to save the defendant's breath sample for later retesting? The Court noted that a 'field crimper-indium encapsulation kit' was readily available, cheap and approved by the California Department of Health Services. So why isn't the evidence saved in DUI cases today?
Whatever duty the Constitution imposes on the States to preserve evidence, that duty must be limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect's defense. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and also be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means. Neither of these conditions is met on the facts of this case. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984).
1. The possible value of the defendant's breath sample in helping prove innocence was not apparent before it was destroyed'..What? The machine never makes mistakes? It was not apparent to the police that a re-analysis of the all-important breath sample might be of any value to the suspect?
2. The defendant was able to 'obtain comparable evidence by other means'. How? He has no access to another breath test. At best, he might be able to get a blood test at a hospital, if the police let him ' but it would probably be so much later that it would not be relevant or even admissible in court.
So, of course, the police are careful to preserve the breath sample, right? I mean, there may be some question later of whether the machine was working correctly; it would be a simple matter to save the sample so it could be tested again on another machine. And, hard to believe, but the defense may not want to just take the officer's word that he administered the test correctly and that the test results were from the defendant.
Unfortunately, the breath sample is routinely destroyed moments after it is tested. But how can this be? That's a question that was asked a few years ago by a defendant in California appealing his DUI conviction. The Court of Appeals of that state agreed and reversed the conviction:
Due process simply demands that where evidence is collected by the state, as it is with the Intoxilyzer, or any other breath testing device, law enforcement agencies must establish and follow rigorous and sytematic procedures to preserve the captured evidence or its equivalent for the use of the defendant. People v. Trombetta, 142 CalApp.3d 138 (1983).
How hard is it to save the defendant's breath sample for later retesting? The Court noted that a 'field crimper-indium encapsulation kit' was readily available, cheap and approved by the California Department of Health Services. So why isn't the evidence saved in DUI cases today?
Whatever duty the Constitution imposes on the States to preserve evidence, that duty must be limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect's defense. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and also be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means. Neither of these conditions is met on the facts of this case. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984).
1. The possible value of the defendant's breath sample in helping prove innocence was not apparent before it was destroyed'..What? The machine never makes mistakes? It was not apparent to the police that a re-analysis of the all-important breath sample might be of any value to the suspect?
2. The defendant was able to 'obtain comparable evidence by other means'. How? He has no access to another breath test. At best, he might be able to get a blood test at a hospital, if the police let him ' but it would probably be so much later that it would not be relevant or even admissible in court.