Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Scales v. City Court of City of Mesa, 594 P.2d 97.

86 citing documents.

State v. O'DELL 46 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. O'DELL 46 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See, e.g., Valdez, 91 Ariz. at 277-79 , 371 P.2d at 896-98 (polygraph evidence); -35 , -01 (1979) (breathalyzer); -66 , -36 (1984) (“voiceprint” evidence); State v. Superior Court (Blake), -80 , -82 (1986) (horizontal gaze nystagmus testing); -42 , 762 P.
State v. Clary 2 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Clary 2 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(blood alcohol content may be "crucial” in ascertaining intoxication).
MacK v. Cruikshank 2 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
MacK v. Cruikshank 2 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
To enable a suspect to do so, a line of cases has progressed, as the breath-testing technology has advanced, from requiring the state to preserve the breath ampoule it tests, , to requiring it to take and preserve a second sample when the test sam- *546 pie is destroyed in the testing process, , to requiring that the second sample be “reasonably reliable,” , (App.
State v. Sanchez 967 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Sanchez 967 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 878 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 878 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Moss v. Superior Court 857 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Moss v. Superior Court 857 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)
State v. Kemp 813 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1991
State v. Kemp 813 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1991
State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. City Court of City of Mesa 799 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. City Court of City of Mesa 799 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1990
State v. Velasco 799 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1990
State v. Velasco 799 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1990
State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
§ 28-691(A) and (B) is invoked and the suspect is requested to submit to a chemical sobriety test, if law enforcement officers discard the breath sample, , they must offer to collect and if necessary preserve evidence on behalf of the suspect.
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 789 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 789 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1990
s of their breath would be saved, and a single blood test, where defendants were advised that a sample of blood would be preserved for later testing by all parties, , , , , were satisfied.
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 788 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 788 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
the court gave the key to the decision in this case: An essential lesson to be drawn from McNutt [v. Superior Court of State of Arizona, , ], Scales [v. City Court of City of Mesa, , ], and Baca [v. Smith, , ] is that a defendant must be allowed to counter the state’s scientific evidence of intoxication, or evidence of refusal, with the defendant’s own scientific evidence.
State v. Youngblood 790 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Youngblood 790 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
holding that due process requires that the state must preserve breathalyzer samples in DUI cases.
State v. Havatone 769 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Gerhardt 778 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Gerhardt 778 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
(fact that breath test result incriminates defendant does not excuse state’s failure to preserve breathalyzer test ampoules).
State v. Havatone 769 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
For example, , the court held that the test ampoule created by administration of the breathalyzer must be preserved because it provides the defendant with a crucial source of evidence with which to attack the validity of the test result and the accompanying presumption of intoxication.
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
P.2d 97 (1979) (breathalyzer) , (polygraph) , (dog tracking).
State v. Harrison 755 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Harrison 755 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984)
State v. Lopez 754 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Lopez 754 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
“First, was the evidence material to the question of guilt or the degree of punishment; second, was the defendant prejudiced by its destruction; and, third, was the government acting in good faith when it destroyed the evidence?”
State v. Youngblood 734 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Youngblood 734 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
However, in Mitchell we concluded that the failure of the state to preserve the sample did not merit dismissal but only suppression of any bloodgrouping evidence
State v. Mance 733 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Mance 733 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
In Mongan , our supreme court stated that breath samples must be destroyed in a , if the police follow the procedure in Rule 28.2, the requirement of due process will be satisfied.
State v. Escalante 734 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Escalante 734 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
which held that it was not necessary to dismiss charges against drunk driving defendants simply because the police had destroyed breathalyzer ampoules before they could be tested by the defendants.
Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
Brady’s , in which we condemned the state’s practice of routinely destroying breathalyzer test ampoules.