Brockett v. State

I agree with the majority that the results of Brockett’s blood test were properly considered by the factfinder, but I disagree with the majority as to why. The majority states that the results of the blood test were admissible because the police officer acted in good faith and did not “deliberately violat[e] the law.” In my view, however, the true basis for admission of the evidence is not the officer’s “good faith,” but, rather, his “substantial compliance” with Nevada law. Under NRS 484.389(2), “a court or hearing officer may not exclude evidence of a required test... if the police officer…