STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DIONNDRE AMISÂ (17-15, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2041-15T2

On June 29, 2014, Manchester Township police stopped Dionndre Amis for speeding and observed signs of intoxication; he failed three field sobriety tests and admitted drinking.
At the police station Amis made one adequate breath attempt followed by two insufficient attempts; after a fourth insufficient attempt the officer charged him with refusal to submit to a breath test and with DWI.
Defense counsel requested preservation of the in‑station video showing the breath test; the prosecution destroyed the oldest footage under routine automatic deletion before producing it.
The municipal court inspected the breath‑testing room and found the camera was positioned behind the defendant such that the video could not have shown the defendant’s mouth or the breath tube and thus could not have been exculpatory; it denied dismissal and convicted Amis of DWI and Refusal.
The Law Division conducted a de novo hearing on the record, affirmed the convictions, and Amis appealed arguing spoliation (due process and confrontation) and insufficiency of the evidence as to refusal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether destruction of the in‑station video violated due process (Brady/Trombetta/Youngblood) and required dismissal or exclusion	State: Video was not exculpatory or materially useful; destruction was routine and did not show bad faith	Amis: Requested preservation; destruction without producing a copy shows bad faith or at least deprived him of potentially useful, exculpatory evidence requiring dismissal or exclusion	Held: No due process violation — municipal court found video could not have depicted anything favorable; State did not act in bad faith and evidence was not material or potentially useful under applicable standards
Whether evidence proved refusal beyond a reasonable doubt	State: Officer had probable cause, warned Amis, and Amis repeatedly failed to produce adequate breath samples, satisfying refusal elements	Amis: The destroyed video might have shown a good‑faith attempt or a physical inability to complete the test, undermining refusal proof	Held: Conviction affirmed — record shows adequate warnings and three insufficient efforts without any claim of respiratory illness; conduct constituted refusal under controlling law

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (requirements for destroyed evidence to violate due process)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (destruction of potentially useful evidence requires bad faith to violate due process)
State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (appellate review limits; deference to trial factfindings)
State v. Marquez, 202 N.J. 485 (elements the State must prove for chemical test refusal)
State v. Bernhardt, 245 N.J. Super. 210 (clarifies what constitutes refusal to submit to a breath test)