Woman Faces Second DUI Trial after Blood Sample Destruction
A woman from Greenville, South Carolina is fighting a DUI charge against her because the South Carolina State Trooper who arrested her for South Carolina DUI threw away crucial evidence that she says could prove her innocence.
Susan Jan Albert, 55, was arrested for DUI in July 2007 after she was involved in a minor accident. The officer who was investigating the accident saw several bottles of prescription medication in Albert's purse and therefore charged her with driving under the influence. Albert takes the prescribed medication to treat several serious physical illnesses, according to court records.
A blood sample was taken from Albert on the night of the accident but was later destroyed. Last year a Greenville County magistrate dismissed the DUI charge against Albert, citing the officer's "intentional destruction" of the evidence. However, last month a circuit judge overturned the dismissal because he found that there was no evidence that the officer acted in bad faith and that the basic facts of the case are not disputed.
The prosecutors in the case had requested that the dismissal of the case be overturned because they believed that the magistrate judge made an error. They argued that the state trooper was inexperienced in blood evidence in DUI cases and destroyed the evidence because he was ordered to do so by a corporal who said the sample was unnecessary because blood samples are only used in felony DUI cases. Albert was not charged with felony DUI.
So six months after the charges against her were dismissed, Albert must now appear before a Greenville County Magistrate to defend herself against the original DUI charges stemming from a minor fender-bender that happened on July 16, 2007 while she was on her way home from church.
Albert had attended church and was preparing to drive to Columbia, South Carolina to take care of her sick grandson when she rear-ended another vehicle. She was trying to locate her car insurance documents in her purse when the state trooper approached her car and saw the prescription medications in her purse. The officer said that he also noticed several signs that led him to believe that Albert was under the influence of medication, according to Greenville Online.
Because Albert suffers from fibromyalgia and a rare disease called Sjogren's syndrome, she has been prescribed several medications. A urine test taken the night of the accident confirmed the presence of the prescription medications in her system.
However, as a doctor testified in her first trial when the case was dismissed, the medication is medically necessary for Albert and does not impair he ability to drive.
Evidence was also introduced to show that because the complications of fibromyalgia, Albert was unable to walk heel-to-toe during a field sobriety test.
Because of Sjogren's disease, a disorder that causes immune cells to attack the glands that create tears and saliva, Albert was unable to look into a flashlight. Therefore she failed these field sobriety tests, was arrested for South Carolina DUI and was taken to the law enforcement center for a breath test.
Albert's breath test revealed that she had not consumed any alcohol. She was then taken to the hospital for a urine test and while she was there, she requested a blood test as well. Because she had worked as a registered nurse for 16 years at a correctional facility, Albert knew that a blood test would prove her innocence. She also asked to see a doctor before being taken to jail, but the officer denied her request.
Several days later, Albert contacted the State Law Enforcement Division to ask about her blood test results and was told that the agency did not receive her blood sample. At Albert's trial, the officer who arrested her testified that he had thrown the blood sample into the trash because he was told that blood sample evidence was the only evidence to exonerate a DUI defendant and that the urine sample was not a substitute.
Jan Albert will again go on trial for DUI without the blood evidence to support her innocence. The prosecution says that the officer did intentionally destroy the blood sample, but that he mistakenly thought that he was following orders to do so and the act was not malicious.