California v. Trombetta/Concurrence O'Connor

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984)
Concurring opinion by Sandra Day O'Connor
4429351California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) — Concurring opinionSandra Day O'Connor
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinion
O'Connor

Justice O'Connor, concurring.

Rules concerning preservation of evidence are generally matters of state, not federal constitutional law. See United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 352–353 (1969). The failure to preserve breath samples does not render a prosecution fundamentally unfair, and thus cannot render breath-analysis tests inadmissible as evidence against the accused. Id., at 356. Similarly, the failure to employ alternative methods of testing blood-alcohol concentrations is of no due [p492] process concern, both because persons are presumed to know their rights under the law and because the existence of tests not used in no way affects the fundamental fairness of the convictions actually obtained. I understand the Court to state no more than these well-settled propositions. Accordingly, I join both its opinion and judgment.


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse