The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Graham (Decided November 27, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the unintentional destruction of the squad video does not violate Due Process.
Mr. Graham was charged with second-degree DWI and he challenged the stop and arrest. The arresting officer testified that he observed Mr. Graham drive his vehicle over the fog line and make a "sloppy right turn, and cross into oncoming traffic before correcting into the proper lane. The arresting officer testified that his squad car’s video system automatically activates when an officer turns on the vehicle’s emergency lights, and the captured footage will often include a few minutes of video prior to the activation of the lights. He further testified he believed Graham’s driving conduct was automatically recorded by the squad camera.
Defense counsel was then given leave by the Court to obtain a copy of the squad video. The state later informed the district court that the squad video did not exist and requested that the record be closed. Graham moved the district court to dismiss the charges, arguing that the loss or destruction of the squad video constituted a due-process violation. The district court held a second omnibus hearing and received testimony from the arresting officer and his chief of police.
The police chief testified testified that he oversees the sergeants assigned to managing, transferring, and storing videos; that he searched for and could not locate the video recording of Graham’s traffic stop; and that all recordings labeled as medical calls were “deleted for 2019 to free up some space on our server.” He testified that “it’s to the point where test recordings, traffic warnings and medicals take up a lot of space on our internal storage, and it’s my belief that after a year or two if there haven’t been any complaints” then “we just delete them,” and that “[t]he only person in our department that has the password to remove the files [is] myself.” He testified, “I might have deleted it if it was labeled as a test recording, as a medical or as a traffic warning.”
The district court denied Graham’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that there was “an equal likelihood the squad video could have inculpated [Graham] as it could have exculpated him.” The district court determined that the squad video was not destroyed in bad faith, that the exculpatory value of the evidence was not apparent "at the time of destruction".
On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the district court stating:
"In Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held “that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Thus, “[u]nder Brady, the suppression by the [s]tate, whether intentional or not, of material evidence favorable to the defendant violates the constitutional guarantee of due process.” Walen v. State, 111 N.W.2d 213, 216 (Minn. 2010)."
"The three elements of a Brady violation are: “(1) the evidence must be favorable to the defendant because it would have been either exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the prosecution, intentionally or otherwise; and (3) the evidence must be material—in other words, the absence of the evidence must have caused prejudice to the defendant.” Id. If evidence that is only potentially useful to a defendant is destroyed, then the defendant must show bad faith on the part of the state to establish a due-process violation. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51,58 (1988)."
* * *
"The district court reasoned that the video was not material because there was an equal likelihood that the video was inculpatory, and not exculpatory...The district court’s reasoning is sound, and we agree that the video was not “material.” There must be something beyond mere “hope” that the destroyed evidence could be exculpatory before it will be protected as the type of “material exculpatory evidence addressed in Brady”.
"Because the video was not material and was only “potentially useful,” Graham must show bad faith on the part of the state to succeed on his due-process claim. The United States Supreme Court and the Minnesota Supreme Court have identified two indices of bad faith: (1) the state’s purposeful destruction of evidence favorable to a defendant so as to conceal it; and (2) the state’s failure to follow standard procedures when destroying evidence. Hawkinson, 829 N.W.2d at 373."
"The record does not support a conclusion that the state purposely destroyed the video. The district court expressly found that “while the video may have been destroyed due to mistake or gross negligence, the [c]ourt does not find the video was intentionally destroyed.” And the circumstances do not suggest that the state was attempting to conceal the video. In fact, but for Officer Etshokin’s testimony at the initial omnibus hearing, which revealed the existence of the video, Graham would not have known about the video. Nor does the record support a conclusion that the state failed to follow standard procedures when it destroyed the video."
"In sum, because the video was not “material” and the record does not show that the video was destroyed in bad faith, the district court did not err by denying Graham’s motion to dismiss for a due-process violation."
Moral Of The Story: Counsel should have immediately obtained the squad video as reference thereto is always contained in the police reports.
If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.
