State v. Rolf

367 N.W.2d 715, 219 Neb. 917, 1985 Neb. LEXIS 1034
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedMay 10, 1985
DocketNo. 84-795
StatusPublished

This text of 367 N.W.2d 715 (State v. Rolf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Rolf, 367 N.W.2d 715, 219 Neb. 917, 1985 Neb. LEXIS 1034 (Neb. 1985).

Opinion

White, J.

The issue presented to the court in this appeal is whether the due process rights of a person charged with operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated are violated when the breath sample of the defendant is not preserved for examination by the defendant and presentation at trial.

While this matter was pending, this court ruled on that issue in State v. Vernon, 218 Neb. 539, 541-42, 356 N.W.2d 887, 889-90 (1984), where we said:

With respect to the defendant’s contention that the State is obligated to preserve a breath sample so that an independent test can be made, the U.S. Supreme Court in a recent decision held that due process does not require the State to preserve such a sample. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S ___, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 81 L. Ed. 2d 413 (1984). In the Trombetta case the Court stated at 104 S. Ct. 2535: “We conclude, therefore, that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require that law enforcement agencies preserve breath samples in order to introduce breath-analysis tests at trial.” This assignment of error is without merit.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

California v. Trombetta
467 U.S. 479 (Supreme Court, 1984)
State v. Vernon
356 N.W.2d 887 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
367 N.W.2d 715, 219 Neb. 917, 1985 Neb. LEXIS 1034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rolf-neb-1985.