Lost Videos of Traffic Stops and tests

The Supreme Court of Tennessee has affirmed the suppression of evidence in a case with a lost video. The case, State v Merriman can be read at: http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/merrimanopn.pdf

In its Opinion released today, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, concluding that the State had a duty to preserve the video recording and failed in that duty when the video recording was lost. Because of the obligation to preserve evidence that could possibly clear Ms. Merriman of wrongdoing or assist in her defense, the Court then looked at the other three factors outlined in
State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999).
 It determined that the loss of the video recording resulted from simple negligence; the lost evidence had significance when considered in light of all the other evidence, and its loss prevented viewing the event as it had occurred; and the sufficiency of the other evidence was inconclusive. The Court determined that the loss of the evidence deprived Ms. Merriman of her right to a fair trial.

Note that the facts as stated by the Court were pretty sketchy! I do not know how the State would prove the case, if there was no video and the only facts available from testimony were those listed in the opinion. (Underline added for emphasis)

The facts noted in the opinion were:

"After Ms. Merriman exited the vehicle, Officer Hammond attempted to administer field sobriety tests to Ms. Merriman. Another officer, Sergeant Jones, arrived after the stop of Ms. Merriman’s vehicle and was present during her performance of the field sobriety tests. Ms. Merriman informed Officer Hammond that she had health problems but agreed to attempt the tests. Officer Hammond first conducted the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (“HGN”) test. A second, unspecified field sobriety test ended when Ms. Merriman indicated her knee was “going out.” Officer Hammond administered a final, unspecified test that he believed Ms. Merriman could attempt even with her health issues.
Officer Hammond placed Ms. Merriman under arrest and arranged for transportation of Ms. Merriman’s two minor children, who were passengers in her vehicle. While Officer Hammond was reading the implied consent form to Ms. Merriman, she advised him she had taken Valium and hydrocodone earlier in the day. Ms. Merriman signed the implied consent form acknowledging her refusal to submit to a blood test."

In almost all cases the sufficiency of the evidence without a video should be apparent. In those cases this decision should have no impact!
No conclusions about guilt or innocence could be reached in the Merriman case. We don't know what tests were given or what evidence came from the tests. From the description of the facts, there are no conclusions that would lead us to believe the driver had any indications of impairment from any field test. Perhaps there was more in the record that did not make it into the description of facts, but if these are the facts upon which the court relied, the need for the video is pretty obvious in this case.
This case emphasizes the need to have well written reports and testimony that is conclusive in any case in which a video disappears.
This does not mean the Court now places a higher emphasis on the video that testimony. However, if the testimony would not support proof of guilt, the video is going to be the evidence that is vital.