results of the breathalyzer test in Alaska

1989In Anchorage v. Serrano, 649 P.2d 256, 258 (Alaska App.1982) (footnote omitted), we held that “the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution requires the prosecution to make reasonable efforts to preserve a breath sample or to take other steps to allow a defendant to verify the results of the breathalyzer test.” Swanson argues that the Juneau Police Department policy of offering the opportunity for an independent blood test does not satisfy the requirement set forth in Serrano, 1 This argument is foreclosed by our decision in Gundersen v. Anchorage, 762 P.2d 104 (Alaska App.1988), aff'd on

1985Gilbert Serrano, 649 P.2d 256 , the Appellate Court concluded that the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution requires the prosecution to make a reasonable effort to preserve the *903 breath sample or to take steps to allow a defendant to verify the results of the breathalyzer test.

2020In Lauderdale v. State, decided in 1976, we approved a district court’s order suppressing the results of a breathalyzer test in a DUI prosecution after the State was unable to produce the ampoule of the defendant’s collected breath for independent testing.21 We reasoned that the defendant would be denied a fair trial if he was not given the opportunity to “test the reliability or credibility of the results of the breathalyzer test . . . by a scientific analysis of some of the [collected breath samples] which . . . may well yield scientifically reliable data bearing on his innocence or guilt.”2

2020In Lauderdale v. State, decided in 1976, we approved a district court’s order suppressing the results of a breathalyzer test in a DUI prosecution after the State was unable to produce the ampoule of the defendant’s collected breath for independent testing.21 We reasoned that the defendant would be denied a fair trial if he was not given the opportunity to “test the reliability or credibility of the results of the breathalyzer test . . . by a scientific analysis of some of the [collected breath samples] which . . . may well yield scientifically reliable data bearing on his innocence or guilt.”2

2020In Lauderdale v. State, decided in 1976, we approved a district court’s order suppressing the results of a breathalyzer test in a DUI prosecution after the State was unable to produce the ampoule of the defendant’s collected breath for independent testing.21 We reasoned that the defendant would be denied a fair trial if he was not given the opportunity to “test the reliability or credibility of the results of the breathalyzer test . . . by a scientific analysis of some of the [collected breath samples] which . . . may well yield scientifically reliable data bearing on his innocence or guilt.”2

2020In Lauderdale v. State, decided in 1976, we approved a district court’s order suppressing the results of a breathalyzer test in a DUI prosecution after the State was unable to produce the ampoule of the defendant’s collected breath for independent testing.21 We reasoned that the defendant would be denied a fair trial if he was not given the opportunity to “test the reliability or credibility of the results of the breathalyzer test . . . by a scientific analysis of some of the [collected breath samples] which . . . may well yield scientifically reliable data bearing on his innocence or guilt.”2

2020In such circumstances, the test result is considered tolerably inaccurate, and, therefore, the Department may revoke a 36 865 P.2d 753 (Alaska 1993). 37 Id. at 754 . 38 Id. at 756 . 39 Id. at 755 (emphasis in original). 40 Id. at 755-56 . -11- 7438 license on the basis of the test result without regard to the test’s margin of error.[41] In 1996, in the wake of Haynes, the Alaska legislature enacted AS 28.40.060.

2020In such circumstances, the test result is considered tolerably inaccurate, and, therefore, the Department may revoke a 36 865 P.2d 753 (Alaska 1993). 37 Id. at 754 . 38 Id. at 756 . 39 Id. at 755 (emphasis in original). 40 Id. at 755-56 . -11- 7438 license on the basis of the test result without regard to the test’s margin of error.[41] In 1996, in the wake of Haynes, the Alaska legislature enacted AS 28.40.060.

2020In Lauderdale v. State, decided in 1976, we approved a district court’s order suppressing the results of a breathalyzer test in a DUI prosecution after the State was unable to produce the ampoule of the defendant’s collected breath for independent testing.21 We reasoned that the defendant would be denied a fair trial if he was not given the opportunity to “test the reliability or credibility of the results of the breathalyzer test . . . by a scientific analysis of some of the [collected breath samples] which . . . may well yield scientifically reliable data bearing on his innocence or guilt.”2

2020In Lauderdale v. State, decided in 1976, we approved a district court’s order suppressing the results of a breathalyzer test in a DUI prosecution after the State was unable to produce the ampoule of the defendant’s collected breath for independent testing.21 We reasoned that the defendant would be denied a fair trial if he was not given the opportunity to “test the reliability or credibility of the results of the breathalyzer test . . . by a scientific analysis of some of the [collected breath samples] which . . . may well yield scientifically reliable data bearing on his innocence or guilt.”2

1979Therefore, the situation differs from that in Lauderdale v. State, 548 P.2d 376 (Alaska 1976), where the results of the breathalyzer test could not be assessed independently because the control ampoule had been discarded. 577 P.2d at 1059 (footnote omitted).