When facing a driving under the influence (DUI) charge in California, most people assume that a breath test reading above the legal limit guarantees a conviction. However, law enforcement officers must strictly follow the law when gathering evidence. Under California Vehicle Code (VC) § 23614, ignoring a driver’s statutory right to retest evidence can dismantle the prosecution’s entire case.

In a recent DUI matter stemming from a stop on the I-405 in Long Beach, a strong legal defense surrounding VC § 23614 successfully challenged the admissibility of chemical test evidence and protected the driver’s rights.

Understanding California Vehicle Code § 23614

When an officer conducts a DUI investigation and a driver elects to take a breath test, California law mandates specific advisements. Because standard evidential breath testing devices do not store a physical sample for independent analysis, VC § 23614 requires officers to inform drivers of their right to provide a blood or urine sample to be retained for later retesting at no cost to them.

The statute explicitly mandates:

“If the person completes a breath test and wishes to provide a blood or urine sample to be retained, the sample shall be collected and retained in the same manner as if the person had chosen a blood or urine test initially.”

Under California law, the word “shall” renders this duty non-negotiable. It is not a suggestion; it is a mandatory legal mandate.

The Long Beach Case Breakdown

During an early morning investigation following a call on the I-405, a driver was stopped by law enforcement. The officer read the required VC § 23614 chemical test advisement:

• The Advisement: The officer explicitly asked the driver if they wished to provide an additional blood or urine sample for preservation.
• The Response: The driver checked “YES” and verbally requested that an additional sample be collected and retained.
• The Violation: Despite the clear request, the officer failed to facilitate the collection of a blood or urine sample.

The officer proceeded solely with the breath test results (which registered at .12/.12, well above the 0.08% BAC legal threshold) and neglected the statutory requirement to retain an independent sample.

Key Legal Arguments That Dismantled the Prosecution’s Case

Long Beach DUI Defense attorney Matthew Ruff filed a comprehensive legal memorandum pointing out several fatal flaws in the state’s case:

1. Violation of Fundamental Due Process

Under established California case law (Brown v. Municipal Court), denying an accused driver the opportunity to procure an independent, retained sample prevents them from obtaining exculpatory evidence necessary for their defense. Destroying or failing to collect this sample deprives the driver of due process under the law.

2. Rebutting the Presumption of Official Duty Regularity

Under California Evidence Code § 664, courts generally presume that law enforcement officers perform their official duties correctly. However, showing that an officer explicitly ignored mandatory duties under VC § 23614 rebuts this presumption. Once the defense demonstrates a complete failure to comply with statutory collection and sample retention mandates, the burden shifts back to the government to independently prove the accuracy and foundation of the breath test without relying on the officer’s sworn statement.

3. Breach of Title 17 Sample Retention Mandates

Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations sets strict procedures for scientific evidence handling, requiring retained blood or urine samples to be stored for one year to allow independent defense testing. By failing to collect the requested sample after a breath test, the officer completely bypassed these mandatory retention safeguards.

4. Challenging Probable Cause & Video Discrepancies

Beyond the statutory violation, defense counsel analyzed the officer’s narrative against the actual footage. While the arrest report claimed the driver showed “slurred speech” and lost balance during field sobriety tests, the video evidence told a different story:

• The driver showed calm, cooperative behavior and understood complex instructions.
• Environmental distractions (strobe lights from highway patrol vehicles, performing balance tests barefoot on cold asphalt next to active highway traffic) offered clear alternative explanations for minor physical deviations.
• Fatigue from being awake since the previous day explained minor physical tire rather than alcoholic impairment.

The Outcome: Dismissal of DUI Charges 

Because the arresting officer violated VC § 23614 by failing to preserve a sample after the driver requested it, the appropriate legal remedy was the total exclusion/suppression of the breath test results.

However, before the case got to the judge ruling on the motion, Matthew negotiated a full dismissal of the DUI and driving above .08 for a plea to reckless driving.

Takeaway for Drivers

Police officers are held to strict standards when conducting criminal investigations. If an officer fails to observe your statutory rights—such as ignoring your request for a retained secondary sample under VC § 23614—the evidence against you can be declared inadmissible.

Matthew Ruff is a renowned DUI lawyer with 30 years experience, known in the legal community as the “Master of DUI Defense”. If you or someone you know is facing DUI charges in Long Beach or Southern California, having an attorney who understands the procedural nuances of the Vehicle Code and California due process can make all the difference.