State v. Johnson, 297 Kan. 210

Johnson was convicted of DUI at a Wichita, Kansas sobriety checkpoint after failing field sobriety tests and a breath test with a .084 BAC.
He challenged destruction of his field notes and failure to preserve a breath sample from the Intoxilyzer 5000.
He contended the prearranged check lane required a court-issued warrant to perform the breath test.
He argued the State failed to prove KDHE compliance and that KDHE certification evidence was inadmissible for lack of confrontation.
The district court admitted certification records and Koeoser’s operating certification; the jury found Johnson guilty of BAC > .08 and acquitted a related impairment charge.
Court of Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court granted review to address destruction/preservation, warrantless testing, and confrontation issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Destruction/preservation of field notes	Johnson argues dismissal due to deputy’s destroyed notes and non-preservation of breath sample.	Johnson lacks proper statutory basis for dismissal; district court found no prejudice and notes were transcribed into reports.	No reversible error; discretion to sanction not abused; destruction was benign and lacks due process violation.
Preservation of breath sample	Breath sample retention was essential; State failed to trap/store sample for retesting.	Trombetta controls; defendant could obtain independent testing; no due process violation.	No due process violation; independent testing rights satisfied; no confrontation or fair trial violation.
Warrantless breath test at a prearranged checkpoint	Checkpoint prearranged so no exigent circumstances; warrant required.	Consent exception applies; implied consent under 8-1001; reasonable grounds plus implied consent justify testing.	Consent exception applies; warrantless breath test upheld.
Confrontation rights and KDHE certification evidence	Crawford requires confrontation for certification testimony; records are testimonial.	Certifications are non-testimonial; not subject to Crawford; prior Kansas authority supports admission.	Certifications were not testimonial; properly admitted without in-person testimony.

Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (due process for potentially useful evidence requires bad faith)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (duty to preserve evidence limited to exculpatory value and availability)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation clause depends on testimonial nature of statements)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (confrontation concerns for certificates; testimonial considerations)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (certificates and expert testimony; confrontation implications)
State v. Benson, 295 Kan. 1061 (2012) (certificates not testimonial; calibration evidence not testimonial)
State v. LaMae, 268 Kan. 544 (2000) (bad faith inquiry for destroyed evidence)
State v. Garcia, 282 Kan. 252 (2006) (abuse of discretion and discovery standards in sanctions)
State v. Sanchez-Loredo, 294 Kan. 50 (2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings; de novo/undisputed facts)