ÿWPC‰ …U:V %–nX¦ 04þ42 w@F † U:Ž È n­Ð } 0J… 0TÏ 0^# U> 0h¿ 0r' 0|™ 0† 0› 1u+ 0d  BB)!DCJ AMU*Ú D3é7é  0@ U>I ‡v~“vÓ AOäÆ3 0Dù D/= Bl<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX3|xß«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT¼¼Œþ6X@ÉDQ¼@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  ÓÚƒç"Âÿÿÿÿ ËÌÓ€ØÙDÚÛ[ÜUÝ îÞ5Ußî,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô<è\( 9Z &Courier Regular26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial%%%%'ÿÿdxd ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òJuly€17,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òJuly€17,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òJuly€17,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X Òò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€Ö¼XXdÖdÈ7ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àÔ€¼ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€ÌÙ€€ÙßR€(+'A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÌà@ àAT€€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€1994€SESSIONÌÔ€XÔÌó óÌÌÌÌÌÔˆˆÔð#ðÌÔˆˆÔðð€€€€Ìò òÔ€¼ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,Ô$$ÔÔ€XÔððÌ€€€€€€€€€€€AppelleeÔ  Ôðð€€No.€03C01›„9406„CR„00235ÔÐóÐóÔÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÔÀÀÔððÌà àà àà àà àà à€vs.ÔP P Ôð*ð€€WASHINGTON€COUNTYÌÔˆˆÔððÌÔˆˆÔðð€€Hon.€Lynn€W.€Brown,€JudgeÌò òÔ€¼ÔMARVIN€K.€œFERGUSON›,€€€€€ó óÔhhÔÔ€XÔððÌ€€€€€€€€€€€AppellantÔ((Ôðð€€(DUI)ÌÔˆˆÔð$ðÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:€€ÌÌDennis€œTomlin›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Charles€W.€œBurson›ÌAttorney€at€Law€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÌ627€Second€Avenue,€SouthÌœNashville,TN›€37210€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Christina€S.€œShevalier›€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà à€€€Criminal€Justice€DivisionÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Nashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€David€œCrockett›€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Joe€C.€œCrumley,Jr›.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€œAsst›€œDist›.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€P.O.€Box€38Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€œJonesborough›,€TN.€37659ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________________ÌÌÌÌò òÔ€¼ÔAFFIRMED€Ô€XÔÌÌÌó óRobert€E.€Burchò òÌó óSpecial€JudgeÌà à€€€ÌÌÌÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÑ7€Ö¼XXdÖXXdÖ7Ñà àThe€appellant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€the€criminal€offenseÏof€driving€a€motor€vehicle€while€intoxicated€(second€offense).€TheÏtrial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€eleven€months,€twenty„nineÏdays€in€the€county€jail,€suspended€after€service€of€forty„fiveÏ(45)€days,€and€fined€him€one€thousand€eight€hundred€dollars.€Ìà àAppellant€presents€seventeen€issues€for€review€by€this€court.€ÏAppellant€has€failed€to€include€in€his€brief€any€argument€relatingÏto€issue€numbers€6,€9,€11,€12,€13,€14,€15,€16,€and€17.€ÏAccordingly,€these€issues€are€waived.€Rule€10(b)€€òòRules€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appealsóó.€€In€addition,€Appellant€has€failed€toÏcite€any€authority€whatever€in€his€argument€concerning€issues€7Ïand€8.€€These€issues€are€also€waived.€€Rule€10(b)€òòRules€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals;€State€v.€œDickerson›óó€885€S.W.2d€90€œ(Tenn.›ÏCrim.€App.€1983).€Ìà àThe€remaining€issues€are:Ìà àà à1).€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€refusing€to€dismiss€theÏindictment€on€the€ground€that€there€was€no€probable€cause€for€theÏarrest€of€the€appellant€for€the€offense€of€driving€under€theÏinfluence€of€an€intoxicant?Ìà àà à2,€3,€4€and€10).€Were€the€appellantððs€constitutional€andÏstatutory€rights€violated€by€the€jailing€of€Appellant€without€aÏwritten€order€and€the€failure€of€the€arresting€officer€to€take€theÏappellant€without€unnecessary€delay€before€a€committing€magistrateÏso€that€the€appellant€could€be€examined€in€his€present€state€ofÏsobriety€by€the€magistrate;€told€of€his€right€to€a€breath€alcoholÏtest€and€allowed€to€be€released€from€jail€in€order€to€obtain€aÏblood€alcohol€test€on€his€own?à àœÌ›à àà à5).€Were€Appellantððs€constitutional€rights€violated€byÏthe€destruction€and/or€suppression€of€the€video€tape€made€of€œtheÇAppellant›€on€the€night€of€his€arrest€when€the€attorney€forÏAppellant€had€requested€that€same€be€preserved?Ìà àWe€find€that€Appellantððs€failure€to€preserve€any€record€of€aÏhearing€and€ruling€on€the€motions€concerning€the€first€two€issuesÏconstitutes€a€waiver€of€any€error.€€The€final€issue€is€œnot€found›Ïto€constitute€reversible€error.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm.ÌÌà@ àœò òFACTSó óÌà àOfficer€Murray€of€the€Johnson€City€Police€Department€was€onÏpatrol€when€he€encountered€a€van€parked€on€the€apron€on€the€on„ramp€to€Interstate€181€with€its€engine€running.€€It€wasÏapproximately€4€a.m.€and€the€driver€appeared€to€be€slumped€overÏthe€steering€wheel.€€The€officer€approached€the€vehicle€and€wokeÏup€the€driver,€who€was€Appellant.€€The€officer€noticed€a€strongÏsmell€of€an€alcoholic€beverage€about€Appellant€and€also€noticedÏthat€Appellantððs€speech€was€slow€and€ð ðsort€of€slurredðð.€€FieldÏsobriety€tests€were€administered€to€Appellant,€which€he€failed€toÏperform€satisfactorily.€€Appellant€was€arrested€and€taken€to€theÏpolice€station€where€he€refused€a€breath€alcohol€test.€€When€atÏthe€police€station,€Appellant€apparently€performed€additionalÏfield€sobriety€tests€while€being€video€taped.€€The€video€tapesÏwere€inadvertently€taped€over€before€they€could€be€viewed€byÏcounsel€for€the€defense.›ÌÌòòà@ àò òóóANALYSISÌà àó óIn€his€first€issue€presented€for€review,€Appellant€submitsÍthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€dismiss€the€indictmentÏin€this€case€because€there€was€no€probable€cause€for€the€arrest€ofÏthe€defendant€for€D.U.I..Ìà àAppellant€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€indictment€orÏsuppress€the€evidence€on€July€9,€1993,€three€days€afterÏindictment.€€The€technical€record€contains€no€ruling€of€the€trialÏcourt€on€said€motion.€€The€transcript€of€the€trial€likewiseÏcontains€no€such€ruling.€€Motions€to€dismiss€based€upon€defects€inÏthe€institution€of€the€prosecution€and€motions€to€suppress€areÏrequired€to€be€raised€before€trial.€Rule€12(b)€òòTenn.€œR.€Crim.›€P.óóò ò€Ïó óIf€these€motions€are€not€raised€prior€to€trial,€they€are€waived.ÏRule€12(f)€òòTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€óóThe€mere€filing€of€a€motion€toÏsuppress€is€not€sufficient€to€raise€an€issue€for€the€court€toÏdecide.€The€proponent€must€bring€the€motion€to€the€attention€ofÏthe€trial€judge€and€obtain€a€ruling€thereon;€otherwise€the€issueÏis€waived.€òòState€v.€œBurtis›óó,€664€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.€œCrim.›€App.Ï1983);€òòTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.óó€12(f).€In€this€case,€the€defendant€neverÏsought€a€ruling€on€his€motion.€òòÌà àóóIn€addition,€if€the€record€contains€no€ruling€by€the€trialÏcourt€on€the€motion,€the€trial€court€cannot€be€found€in€error.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Walkeróó€910€S.W.2d€381€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àThe€issue€is€waived.Ìà@ àò òDelay€in€appearance€before€a€magistrateó óÌà àIn€issues€2,€3,€4€and€10,€Appellant€complains€that€the€policeÏincarcerated€him€without€a€written€order€and€then€delayed€inÏtaking€him€before€a€magistrate€resulting€in€a€loss€of€hisÍopportunity€to€be€advised€of€his€right€to€a€blood€test€inÏsufficient€time€to€have€a€meaningful€test€done€or€to€be€releasedÏ(apparently€on€bail)€within€a€time€which€would€have€allowed€him€toÏhave€a€blood€test€done€on€his€own.Ìà àThe€motion€to€dismiss€was€filed€on€July€9,€1993.€€No€hearingÏof€the€motion€appears€in€the€transcript.€€No€ruling€of€the€trialÏcourt€appears€in€the€transcript.€€No€order€denying€the€motion€toÏsuppress€appears€in€the€technical€record.€€The€facts€upon€whichÏAppellantððs€motion€is€based€have€never€been€established€by€proof.€ÏAllegations€contained€in€pleadings€are€not€evidence.€òòState€vÏRobertsóó€755€S.W.2d€833€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).Ìà àAs€has€been€stated€in€reference€to€issue€number€1,€above,€theÏfailure€of€the€appellant€to€raise€this€issue€prior€to€trial€andÏobtain€a€ruling€thereon€amounts€to€a€waiver€of€the€issue.€òòState€v.ÏœBurtis›óó,€664€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.€œCrim.›€App.€1983).€€We€are€well€awareÏthat€the€trial€court€stated,€on€page€178€of€the€trial€transcript,Ïthat€the€matter€of€the€defendant€going€before€a€ð ðjudge€or€clerk€orÏanything€like€thatðð€had€already€been€ruled€on.€€The€problem€isÏthat€the€hearing€and€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court,€if€theyÏoccurred,€have€not€been€preserved€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€As€farÏas€this€court€is€concerned,€the€hearing€and€ruling€never€occurred.€ÏWe€certainly€cannot€review€the€same€for€correctness.€€The€failureÏof€counsel€to€include€these€proceedings€in€the€record€haveÏprecluded€any€appellate€review.Ìà àThe€issue€is€waived.Ìà@ àò òDestruction€of€Video€Tapeó óÌà àIn€his€fifth€issue€presented€for€review,€Appellant€submitsÏthat€the€inadvertent€erasure€of€the€video€tape€of€AppellantððsÏbooking€and€performing€field€sobriety€tests€constitutes€aÏviolation€of€Appellantððs€constitutional€right€to€due€process€ofÏlaw€in€that€material€evidence€concerning€this€case€has€beenÏdestroyed.Ìà àNo€record€of€a€pre„trial€hearing€and€ruling€œon›€this€existsÏœeither;›€however,€the€trial€judge€allowed€proof€to€be€developed€andÏarguments€made€concerning€this€issue€during€the€trial.€€The€rulingÏof€the€trial€judge€can€be€found€in€the€record€of€the€trial.€€WeÏmust€assume,€therefore,€that€the€trial€judge€allowed€this€motionÏto€be€made€during€the€trial€and€held€that€relief€from€the€waiverÏprovision€of€Rule€12(f),€òòTenn.€R.€Crim.€œP.,óó›€should€be€allowed€inÏthis€instance.€€Accordingly,€we€will€deal€with€the€merits€ofÏAppellantððs€issue€presented€on€appeal.Ìà àThere€are€two€types€of€instances€in€which€the€state€can€beÏsanctioned€for€loss€or€destruction€of€video€or€audio€tapes€whichÏare€material€to€the€subject€matter€of€the€trial.€€The€first€is€theÏloss€or€destruction€of€the€taped€statement€of€a€witness€to€which€aÏdefendant€is€entitled€under€the€Tennessee€Jencks€Act€(Rule€26.2ÏòòTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.óó).€€This€may€result€in€the€state€being€inÏviolation€of€Rule€26.2.€€The€sanctions€for€said€violation€are€setÏout€in€the€Rule€as€follows:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà à(e)€Sanction€for€Failure€to€ProduceÏStatement.€If€the€other€party€elects€not€toÏcomply€with€an€order€to€deliver€a€statement€toÏthe€moving€party,€the€court€shall€order€thatÏthe€testimony€of€the€witness€be€stricken€fromÍthe€record€and€that€the€trial€proceed,€or,€ifÏit€is€the€attorney€for€the€state€who€electsÏnot€to€comply,€shall€declare€a€mistrial€ifÏrequired€by€the€interest€of€justice.ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓ€à àÌà àIn€a€situation€involving€loss/destruction€of€a€recording€ofÏJencks€material,€there€exists€a€higher€burden€upon€the€State€toÏpreserve€the€evidence.€€The€State€must€use€due€diligence€inÏobtaining€a€statement€and€providing€it€to€a€defendant.€€òòState€vÏCannonóó€661€S.W.2d€893,€899€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€This€dutyÏextends€not€only€to€material€in€the€prosecutorððs€immediateÏcustody,€but€also€to€statements€in€the€possession€of€lawÏenforcement€officers€participating€in€the€case.€òòState€v€Hicks€óó618ÏS.W.2d€510,514€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€In€cases€involving€JencksÏmaterial,€the€imposition€of€sanctions€do€not€necessarily€rest€uponÏa€showing€of€bad€faith.€€Any€intentional€withholding€orÏdestruction€of€statements€may€be€viewed€as€a€violation€of€RuleÏ26.2€for€which€appropriate€sanctions€may€be€applied.€òòState€v€JimÏInmanóó€(unreported)€No.€œ03C01›„9201„CR„00020€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€opinion€filed€November€23,€1993.Ìà àThe€second€type€is€the€denial€to€a€defendant€of€due€processÏof€law€by€the€State€losing€or€destroying€evidence€which€mightÏexculpate€the€defendant.€€This€line€of€cases€is€based€upon€òòBradyÏv.€Maryland€óó83€S.Ct.€1194,€1197,€373€U.S.€83,88,€œ10›€L.Ed€2d€215Ï(1963).€Ìà àSince€this€case€involves€a€video€tape€which€was€not€aÏrecording€of€Appellantððs€statement,€this€issue€concerns€the€secondÏtype€of€case.€€The€cases€dealing€with€failure€to€comply€with€theÍTennessee€Jencks€Act€do€not€apply.Ìà àIn€this€second€type€of€case,€there€are€two€types€ofÏloss/destruction€dealt€with€by€the€court.€€If€the€material€isÏknown€œto€have›€been€favorable€to€the€accused€on€a€material€matter,Ïthe€good€or€bad€faith€of€the€police€is€not€relevant.€€As€wasÏstated€in€òòBrady€v€Maryland€óó83€S.Ct.€1194,€1197,€373€œU.S.83,88›,€10ÏL.Ed.2d€215€(1963):ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓWe€now€hold€that€the€suppression€by€theÏprosecution€of€evidence€favorable€to€theÏaccused€upon€request€violates€due€processÏwhere€the€evidence€is€material€either€to€guiltÏor€to€punishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€orÏbad€faith€of€the€prosecution.Ò  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà à€In€addition,€the€failure€of€the€prosecution€to€preserveÏevidence€which€is€potentially€useful€(as€opposed€to€favorable)€toÏthe€defendant€may€constitute€a€denial€of€due€process€of€law,€ifÏthe€defendant€can€show€bad€faith€on€the€part€of€the€police.ÏòòArizona€v€œYoungblood›óó€488€U.S.€51,€109€S.Ct.€333,€337,€102€L.Ed.2dÏ281(1988).€€It€should€be€noted€that€our€examination€does€notÏinvolve€failure€of€the€prosecution€to€ò òdiscloseó ó€the€existence€ofÏevidence€to€the€defense.€œòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€States›€v€œBagley›óó€473ÏU.S.€667,€105€S.Ct.€3375,€87€L.Ed.2d€481€(1985).€€Our€examinationÏrelates€to€the€loss€or€destruction€of€evidence€which€is€known€toÏhave€existed€although€its€specific€contents€may€or€may€not€beÏknown.€€Ìà àIn€a€situation€involving€loss/destruction€of€knownÏexculpatory€evidence€by€the€prosecution,€the€burden€is€(and€shouldÏbe)€upon€the€defendant€to€establish€that€the€undisclosed€evidenceÍwould€have€been€exculpatory.€€In€the€case€of€evidence€€which€isÏpotentially€useful€to€the€defendant,€the€burden€is€upon€theÏdefendant€to€establish€both€that€the€evidence€was€potentiallyÏuseful€and€that€the€police€acted€in€bad€faith.€This€is€aÏreasonable€burden€when€the€character€of€the€disposed€evidence€isÏknown.Ìà àThe€reasonableness€of€such€a€requirement€disappears,€however,Ïwhere€the€character€of€the€undisclosed€evidence€cannot€beÏdetermined€because€it€has€been€lost€or€destroyed.€€Because€of€theÏfact€of€the€loss/destruction€by€the€police,€it€is€difficult€orÏimpossible€to€determine€what€appeared€on€the€tape.€€We€have€beenÏunable€to€find€any€Tennessee€cases€involving€such€a€situationÏwhich€do€not€involve€Jencks€material.€€Other€states€and€federalÏcircuits€hold€that€a€defendant€need€only€show€that€the€disposedÏevidence€was€clearly€material€to€the€issue€of€guilt€or€innocenceÏ(not€that€it€would€have€been€exculpatory).€œòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€State›€v.ÏBooth€295€œN.W.2d›€194,€19€ALR€4th€498€(œWisc›.€App.€1980)€and€U.S.€vÏBryant€439€œF.2d›€642,€648€(D.C.€Cir€1971).€€This€seems€to€be€aÏreasonable€requirement.Ìà àIf€the€accused€establishes€the€materiality€of€the€disposedÏevidence€and€also€establishes€the€bad€faith€of€the€police€inÏdisposing€of€same,€the€rule€is€the€same€as€with€known€evidenceÏwhich€has€been€destroyed.€€The€police,€by€their€conduct,€haveÏshown€that€the€evidence€would€have€been€favorable€to€the€accusedÏand€a€violation€of€due€process€has€œoccurred.€See›€òòArizona€vÏYoungbloodóó€488€U.S.€51,€58,€109€S.Ct.€333,€337,€102€L.Ed.2dÍ281(1988).€Ìà àWhat€remains,€then,€is€the€situation€in€which€the€bad€faithÏof€the€police€has€not€been€established€in€the€loss/destruction€ofÏevidence,€the€content€of€which€is€not€known,€but€which€would€haveÏbeen€clearly€material€to€the€issue€of€guilt€or€innocence.Ìà àThere€are€situations,€of€course,€in€which€evidence€isÏdisposed€of€by€the€police€without€any€bad€faith€whatever.€€AnÏexample€is€the€case€of€òòState€v€Inmanóó,€supra.€€In€òòInmanóó,€it€wasÏdiscovered€that€the€œT.B.I.›€typing€pool€routinely€erased€audioÏtapes€of€interviews€with€witnesses€after€the€same€had€beenÏtranscribed.€€The€court€found€this€practice€to€be€ill„advised€butÏnot€bad€faith€on€the€part€of€the€œT.B.I.›€€The€case€was€decided€uponÏprinciples€pertaining€to€Jencks€Act€œstatements;›€however,€thisÏcourt€did€examine€this€practice€in€light€of€due€process.€€TheÏprinciple€of€òòArizona€v€Youngbloodóó€was€discussed€along€with€theÏprinciple€suggested€in€the€concurrence€by€Mr.€Justice€Stevens€andÏthat€suggested€in€Mr.€Justice€œBlackmun›ððs€dissent€but€this€courtÏadopted€no€specific€rule€pertaining€to€this€situation.€€It€wasÏheld€that€since€bad€faith€was€not€found€and€there€was€noÏindication€that€the€tapes€contained€material,€exculpatoryÏinformation€which€was€not€otherwise€brought€out€at€trial,€thereÏwas€no€due€process€violation€under€any€of€the€principles€containedÏin€the€òòYoungbloodóó€opinion.€€The€case€was€actually€decided€onÏprinciples€pertaining€to€Jencks€material,€as€it€should€have€been.Ìà àIn€the€case€before€us,€however,€the€evidence€is€not€JencksÏmaterial.€€The€due€process€issue€is€dispositive.€€A€rule€forÍevaluating€violations€of€due€process€in€these€cases€should€beÏadopted.€€What€is€the€role€of€the€police€with€regard€toÏpreservation€of€evidence?Ìà àAlthough€bad€faith€is€not€present,€it€is€the€police€who€areÏhandling€this€evidence.€€One€of€the€main€functions€of€the€policeÏwhen€a€crime€has€been€committed€is€to€gather€and€preserveÏevidence.€€This€function€is€discharged€just€as€surely€if€theÏevidence€is€favorable€to€the€accused€as€it€is€if€it€isÏincriminating.€€The€police€must€preserve€material€evidenceÏregardless€of€its€character.Ìà àOn€the€other€hand,€we€do€not€intend€to€require€the€police€toÏgather€and€preserve€every€piece€of€evidence€pertaining€to€a€crimeÏwhether€material€or€not.€€Neither€do€we€impose€a€duty€toÏanticipate€the€usefulness€of€evidence€to€defense€counsel€andÏpreserve€that€which€might€be€of€use€to€the€defense.€€The€police€doÏnot€have€ð ðan€undifferentiated€and€absolute€duty€to€retain€andÏpreserve€all€material€that€might€be€of€conceivable€evidentiaryÏsignificance€in€a€particular€prosecutionðð.€òòArizona€v€YoungbloodóóÏ488€U.S.€51,€109€S.Ct.€333,€337,€102€L.Ed.2d€281(1988).€Ìà àHaving€defined€the€limits€of€the€obligations€of€the€police€inÏthis€respect,€it€appears€that€the€standard€set€out€in€the€dissentÏin€òòYoungbloodóó€best€accomplishes€the€goal€of€preservation€ofÏmaterial€evidence€without€imposing€an€unreasonable€burden€upon€theÏpolice.€€The€inquiry€of€the€trial€court€in€this€situation€shouldÏbe€focused€upon:Ìà àà à1).€the€materiality€of€the€evidence;Ìà àà à2).€the€potential€of€the€evidence€to€exculpate,€if€thatÏcan€be€determined;€andÌà àà à3).€the€existence€of€other€evidence€on€the€same€point€ofÏcontention.Ìà àSee€òòArizona€v€Youngbloodóó€488€U.S.€51,€67„70,€109€S.Ct.€333,Ï342„3(1988).€Ìà àWe€now€examine€the€case€at€bar€using€these€criteria.€œÌà àThe€arresting€officer€testified€that€Appellant€was€given€twoÏfield€sobriety€tests€at€the€scene€and€that€he€could€not€rememberÏtaped€field€sobriety€tests€being€given€at€the€station;€however,€itÏwas€standard€procedure€to€do€so.€€According€to€the€officer,ÏAppellant€failed€both€field€sobriety€tests€administered€at€theÏscene.€€The€appellantððs€physician€was€called€to€testify€thatÏAppellantððs€injuries€would€cause€him€to€appear€intoxicated€andÏwould€hamper€his€performance€of€the€field€sobriety€tests.€ÏAppellant€testified€that€the€officer€only€gave€him€a€horizontalÏgaze€Nystagmus€test€at€the€scene€and€gave€him€two€taped€fieldÏsobriety€tests€at€the€police€station.€€The€appellant€furtherÏtestified€that€the€officer€told€him€that€Appellant€hadÏsatisfactorily€performed€the€tests€administered€at€the€station.Ì›à àThe€video€tape€œobviously€contained›€the€appellant€performingÏfield€sobriety€tests€and€going€through€the€booking€procedure.€€œAÏvideo€tape€of€the€appellant€performing€field€sobriety€tests€andÏtalking€to€the€officers€would€have€been€instructive€to€the€jury€ofÏthe€issue€of€Appellantððs€intoxication,€which€is€an€essentialÏelement€of€the€offense€of€D.U.I.€€The€tape€would€have€beenÍmaterial.Ìà àThe€potential€of€the€contents€of€the€tape€to€exculpate€isÏdoubtful.€€Appellant€testified€that€he€successfully€performed€theÏfield€sobriety€tests€recorded€on€the€tape€and€that€the€officerÏacknowledged€that€he€had€done€so.€€However,€Appellant€introducedÏmedical€testimony€to€establish€that€his€injuries€would€haveÏprevented€him€from€successfully€accomplishing€field€sobrietyÏtests.€€Appellantððs€physician€testified€that€Appellantððs€balanceÏwas€affected€by€his€vascular€headaches.€€Appellant€himselfÏtestified€that€his€injuries,€particularly€those€to€his€knee,€wouldÏhave€hindered€his€ability€to€successfully€perform€a€field€sobrietyÏtest.€€If€the€video€tape€showed€Appellant€performing€poorly,€theÏcause€of€the€performance€could€be€either€intoxication€or€injury.€ÏIf€the€video€tape€showed€Appellant€performing€satisfactorily,ÏAppellantððs€testimony€concerning€his€injuries€would€have€becomeÏquestionable.€Appellant€himself€admitted€that€he€appeared€to€beÏintoxicated€but€offered€an€explanation€for€so€appearing.€€We€seeÏlittle€or€no€potential€for€exculpation€in€the€missing€evidence.Ìà àFinally,€we€note€that€there€exists€other€evidence€on€thisÏpoint€of€contention€(the€intoxication€of€the€appellant).€€TheÏofficer€gave€field€sobriety€tests€at€the€scene€and€testifiedÏconcerning€Appellantððs€performance€thereof.€€He€also€testifiedÏconcerning€the€odor€of€an€alcoholic€beverage€on€Appellantððs€breathÏand€Appellantððs€physical€appearance€and€speech€being€indicative€ofÏintoxication.€€Appellant€had€an€opportunity€to€avail€himself€of€aÏbreath€alcohol€test€but€refused€same.€The›€appellant€introducedÍevidence€œof€his€sobriety€and€of€a€medical€explanation€of€hisÏappearance€of€intoxication.€›Ìà àIn€short,€the€evidence€contained€on€the€tape€was€material€toÏan€issue€in€the€case.€œThe€evidence€contained€little€or€noÏpotential€to€exculpate€the€appellant.€›€There€was€ample€otherÏevidence€from€which€the€sobriety,€or€lack€thereof,€of€AppellantÏcould€be€determined.€Based€on€these€factors,€we€find€noÏdeprivation€of€Appellantððs€right€to€due€œprocess.Ç›Ìà àThe€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€E.€Burch,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSpecial€JudgeÌÌÌò òÔ€¼ÔCONCUR:ó óÔ€XÔÌÌœòò(SEE€CONCURRING€OPINION)óóÌGary›€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌœòò(SEE€CONCURRING€OPINION)óó›Ì€Joseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ŠÔÑ7€Ö¼XXdÖXXdÖ7ÑßJ€(,;+'b|` Å `€@ÿJß›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLE€óóÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€1994€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à*à àC.C.A.€#€¢03C01£„9406„CR„00235Ì€Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à*à àWASHINGTON€COUNTYÌÌ¢VS£.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Lynn€W.€Brown,€JudgeÌÌMARVIN€K.€FERGUSON,à à*à à(DUI)Ìà àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà à*ÌÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓCONCURRING€OPINIONÓ  Óó óóóÔ€.ÔÔ€.XÔÌÔ€)Ôà àà àI€concur€in€the€result.€€I€write€separately€only€to€note€that€this€court€hasÏfollowed€the€majority€opinion€in€òòArizona€v.€Youngbloodóó,€488€U.S.€51€(1988);€œthus,›€IÏdo€not€believe€we€should€now€adopt€a€conflicting€view.€€In€òòHershel€Clark€v.€Stateóó,ÏNo.€02C01„9112„CR„00273,€slip€op.€at€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€June€2,Ï1993),€our€court€followed€the€òòYoungbloodóó€majority.€€In€òòClarkóó,€the€defendant€allegedÏthat€the€state€failed€to€preserve€certain€of€a€rape€victim's€clothing.€€òòId.óó€at€12.€€ThereÏwas€also€proof€that€the€state€probably€never€had€possession€of€any€of€the€items.€€òòId.óó€ÏOur€court€concluded€as€follows:Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓFrom€a€due€process€perspective,€when€it€is€not€shownÏthat€the€evidence€in€issue€is,€in€fact,€materiallyÏexculpatory,€but,€instead,€is€shown€that€it€òòmightóó€beÏmaterially€exculpatory,€it€is€usually€necessary€to€showÏthat€the€evidence€no€longer€exists€and€that€the€state€hadÏan€improper€hand€in€the€lack€of€its€preservation.€€òòSeeóóÏòòArizona€v.€Youngbloodóó,€488€U.S.€51,€109€S.Ct.€333Ï(1988).€€No€such€showing€was€made€in€this€case.ÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Jerry€Dwayne€œCammuseóó,€No.›€01C01„9107„CR„00216,€slipÏop.€at€13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€œApr.›€29,€1992)€(quoting€òòYoungbloodóó'sÏmajority€opinion€with€approval).€€Permission€to€appeal€was€denied€in€the€òòCammuseóóÏcase€on€September€14,€1992.€€œÇ›Ñ7€Ö¼XXdÖXXdÖ7Ñà àà àIn€my€view,€there€was€no€due€process€violation€here€because€theÏdefendant€has€failed€to€show€any€bad€faith€on€the€part€of€the€state.€€While€I€concurÏin€the€result,€I€believe€the€majority€opinion€in€òòYoungbloodóó€to€be€the€better€course.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÔ€Ơ̜̂œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌÌ›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÑ7€ Ì= XXdæXXdÖ7ÑœßJ€(/;+'b|` Å `€@ÿJß›€à8 àò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€DECEMBER€1994€SESSIONó óÌÌÓÓò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à à)à àNo.€03C01„9406„CR„00235Ìà à€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àWashington€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€Lynn€W.€Brown,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à)Ìò òMARVIN€K.€FERGUSONó ó,à à€€€à à)à à€(DUI)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCURRING€OPINIONóóó óÌÌÌÌÓÓà àI€concur€in€the€result,€as€well.€€As€for€the€issue€ofÏdestruction€or€loss€of€potentially€exculpatory€evidence,€I€thinkÍwe€should€not€use€this€case€to€resolve€any€potential€issue€aboutÏthe€extent€to€which€òòArizona€v.€Youngbloodóó,€488€U.S.€51,€109€S.€Ct.Ï333€(1988),€defines€the€due€process€considerations€to€be€appliedÏunder€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€This€is€because,€as€Judge€BurchÏconcludes,€the€defendant€does€not€prevail€under€any€of€theÏòòYoungbloodóó€standards.€€ÌÌà àI€do€recognize€that€this€court€has€recently€followed€theÏmajority€opinion€in€òòYoungbloodóó€in€several€unpublished€opinionsÏthat€have€focused€on€the€lack€of€bad€faith€by€the€state.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Fabien€Eldridgeóó,€No.€01C01„9504„CC„00106,€Putnam€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€May€7,€1997);€òòRobert€Lloyd€Wiggins€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ï03C01„9606„CC„00191,€McMinn€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€20,Ï1997);€òòState€v.€Jerry€Douglas€Franklinóó,€No.€01C01„9510„CR„00348,ÏDavidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€28,€1997).€€However,€I€amÏnot€ready€to€concede€that€due€process€under€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€requires€bad€faith€on€the€part€of€the€state€in€allÏÑ7€ÞéXXdÈ XXdæ7Ñinstances.€€In€fact,€our€supreme€court€has€shown€that€theÏfundamental€fairness€requirement€in€a€criminal€prosecution€is€notÏlimited€to€circumstances€involving€state€action.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏGrayóó,€917€S.W.2d€668,€673€(Tenn.€1996)€(pre„accusatorial€delay€mayÏbar€prosecution€without€any€state€related€cause).€€Also,€I€noteÏthat€the€majority€of€states€to€consider€òòYoungbloodóó€in€relation€toÍtheir€state€constitutions€have€rejected€the€majority€opinion.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Moralesóó,€657€A.2d€585,€594„95€(Conn.€1995)Ï(listing€states€and€noting€that€only€Arizona€and€California€had,Ïat€that€time,€agreed€with€òòYoungbloodóó).ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€has€recognized€that€due€process€is€flexibleÏand€calls€for€such€procedural€protections€as€the€particularÏsituation€demands.€€òòGrayóó,€917€S.W.2d€at€673.€€This€case€certainlyÏdoes€not€call€for€any€protection€beyond€òòYoungbloodóó.€€Thus,€I€wouldÏhesitate€to€use€this€case€to€test€the€limits€of€òòYoungbloodóó€againstÏthe€limits€of€our€state€constitution.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àÌÌ