Chain of Custody Problems in a Georgia DUI Blood Test
A blood test result can look precise on a Georgia DUI report. The laboratory identifies a blood alcohol concentration or a particular drug, and prosecutors may present that number as objective scientific evidence. Before a laboratory can test anything, though, a vial of blood has to pass through multiple hands and locations.
The sample must be drawn from the correct person, properly identified, sealed, stored, transported to the laboratory, received under appropriate procedures, tested, and retained in a way that preserves its identity. Problems anywhere along that path can raise questions about whether the sample tested by the laboratory was the same sample collected after the DUI arrest. Guidance from an experienced Atlanta DUI defense lawyer can help trace the specimen from the blood draw through the final toxicology report and identify discrepancies that deserve closer examination.
The Chain Begins When the Blood Is Drawn
Chain of custody starts before the vial ever reaches a police evidence room or crime laboratory. The first questions concern who drew the blood, whose blood was collected, how the tubes were identified, and what happened immediately afterward.
O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392 governs chemical testing in Georgia DUI cases. For a state-requested blood test, the statute limits blood draws to a physician, registered nurse, laboratory technician, emergency medical technician, or another qualified person. It also requires qualifying chemical analysis to follow methods approved by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s Division of Forensic Sciences.
Identification at the collection stage can include the driver’s name, collection date and time, initials of the person drawing the blood, and information placed on the tubes or evidence package. The person collecting the specimen may also seal the tubes before giving them to the officer. Those details create the first link between the person arrested and the specimen eventually analyzed.
A problem at this stage can follow the evidence throughout the case. An unlabeled tube, inconsistent identifying information, an unexplained seal, or uncertainty about who received the sample after collection can create questions that later paperwork may not fully resolve.
Sealing and Storage Protect the Sample After Collection
Once the blood has been drawn, the sample may remain in police custody before being transferred to a forensic laboratory. The condition of the seal and the way the sample is stored can help establish that the specimen remained identifiable during that period.
In Self v. State, the Georgia Court of Appeals described a detailed chain beginning with the blood draw. The technician sealed and labeled the tube before handing it to the arresting officer. The officer packaged the specimen in a labeled evidence bag and placed it in a locked evidence refrigerator. Another officer later transported the still-sealed package to the state crime laboratory. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the chain of custody.
A defense review can compare that type of documented process with what happened in the actual case. Evidence logs may show when a sample entered storage and when it left. Body-camera footage may show the blood kit changing hands. An officer’s report may identify one storage location while an evidence record identifies another.
Georgia courts do not require perfect handling at every moment. A storage irregularity still deserves attention because its significance depends on whether the State can reasonably account for the sample’s identity and integrity.
Transportation Creates Another Link in the Evidence Trail
A blood kit does not arrive at a forensic laboratory on its own. Someone must remove it from storage, prepare it for delivery, and transport or mail it to the testing facility.
Transportation records can establish who possessed the sample, when it left police custody, how it was shipped, and when the laboratory received it. An unexplained period between those points can raise a different question from a simple clerical error.
Older Georgia cases demonstrate why identification during transmission matters. In McElwee v. State, testimony established that a blood sample reached the State Crime Laboratory and was later tested, but the appellate court could not determine with sufficient certainty whose blood had actually been transmitted and analyzed. The gap went directly to the identity of the evidence rather than a minor difference in paperwork.
Not every missing witness creates that result. Georgia courts have held that the failure of one person in the chain to testify does not automatically make evidence inadmissible where other evidence provides reasonable assurance of identity. The records surrounding the transfer become especially important when a transporter or evidence custodian does not appear in court.
Laboratory Intake Provides an Independent Checkpoint
Arrival at the laboratory creates another opportunity to document the condition and identity of the specimen. Intake personnel can inspect packaging, confirm labels, assign laboratory numbers, record receipt dates, and note whether seals appear intact.
The process described in Schlanger v. State shows how detailed laboratory documentation can reinforce the chain. After the GBI received the blood kit, personnel inspected it for proper sealing, labeling, leakage, and signs of tampering. The tubes were then placed into a separately sealed and labeled package, photographed, assigned identifying information, and stored in a secured refrigerated area until testing.
Those intake records can be compared against what police say they sent. A different number of tubes, inconsistent name, unexplained broken seal, missing evidence number, or receipt date that does not fit the transportation record can warrant further investigation.
Small discrepancies do not automatically establish substitution or contamination. They can still reveal where the paper trail needs to be reconciled before the laboratory result is accepted at face value.
Testing Records Connect the Specimen to the Reported Result
The chain continues after laboratory intake. A toxicologist must retrieve the correct specimen, conduct the analysis, and associate the analytical result with the correct case.
Georgia regulations require qualifying blood alcohol and drug testing to follow approved methods. Chapter 92-3 of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia addresses qualifications, approved testing methods, laboratory accreditation, quality-control procedures, and other requirements governing chemical analysis under Georgia’s DUI statute.
Laboratory materials can include accession records, worksheets, instrument data, calibration and quality-control information, chromatograms, analyst notes, and the final toxicology report. The details vary with the type of analysis.
Chain-of-custody review is distinct from challenging the scientific testing method itself. One question asks whether the laboratory tested the correct specimen. Another asks whether the analysis of that specimen was performed and interpreted properly. Both can be relevant in a blood-test DUI case without being the same issue.
Retention Matters After the Initial Testing Is Finished
The evidence trail does not necessarily end when the toxicologist signs a report. A remaining blood sample may be retained for some period after testing, potentially allowing independent examination or later review.
Retention records can show where the specimen was stored after analysis, who accessed it, whether any portion was consumed during testing, and whether the remaining evidence was transferred or released. Georgia regulations addressing independent scientific examination contemplate evidence transfers using methods designed to maintain chain of custody, including documented shipping or personal transport.
Preservation can become especially significant when the reported result is disputed. If sufficient samples remain, independent testing can provide another scientific measurement. If the specimen has been destroyed or exhausted, the records surrounding that event can show when it happened and whether any opportunity for additional testing existed beforehand.
A careful defense investigation therefore follows the sample beyond the first laboratory report instead of assuming the evidence ceased to matter once the State completed its analysis.
A Discrepancy Does Not Automatically Make the Blood Result Inadmissible
Georgia treats blood as fungible evidence, meaning its identity cannot ordinarily be established simply by looking at it. The State must show with reasonable certainty that the evidence tested is the same evidence collected and that it was not tampered with or substituted.
The standard does not require prosecutors to eliminate every imaginable possibility of tampering. In Buffington v. State, the Georgia Court of Appeals explained that the State needs to provide reasonable assurance of the sample’s identity. Bare speculation about possible tampering generally goes to the weight of the evidence rather than automatically excluding the evidence.
Georgia decisions also distinguish meaningful breaks from minor inconsistencies. Swanson v. State, for example, involved discrepancies concerning tube-cap colors, packaging descriptions, and which officer took custody after the draw. The court found that the State had still provided sufficient assurance of the samples’ identity and left the discrepancies for the jury to consider when weighing the results.
The strongest chain-of-custody challenge identifies a concrete gap or inconsistency that affects identity, handling, or integrity rather than merely pointing out that the process was not flawless.
Reconstructing the Sample’s Entire Journey
A toxicology report gives the endpoint. Defending a DUI blood case can require working backward through the records that produced it.
The blood-draw documentation can establish who collected the sample and when. Police evidence records can show where it was stored. Transfer records can account for transportation. Laboratory intake materials can document the condition in which it arrived. Analyst records can connect the vial received to the testing performed, while retention records can establish what happened to the remaining specimen afterward.
Review by an Atlanta DUI defense lawyer can compare each stage against the others and determine whether the State can reliably connect the laboratory result to the blood taken after the arrest. A genuine break in that trail can present a substantially different evidentiary problem from an isolated paperwork inconsistency.
Contact The Spizman Firm Today
A DUI blood-test result can carry significant weight, but the number a laboratory reports is only the final step in a much longer evidence process that precedes it. The collection, sealing, storage, transportation, laboratory receipt, testing, and retention of the sample can all deserve review when the State relies on blood evidence to prove a Georgia DUI charge.
Contact The Spizman Firm today to speak with an experienced Atlanta DUI defense lawyer and learn how we can examine the complete chain of custody, laboratory records, and blood-test evidence in your DUI case.
Sources:
- Georgia Code § 40-6-392 — Chemical Tests for Alcohol or Drugs law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-40/chapter-6/article-15/section-40-6-392/
- Georgia Code § 24-9-901 — Authentication or Identification of Evidence law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2024/title-24/chapter-9/article-1/section-24-9-901/
- Georgia Rules and Regulations, Chapter 92-3 — Implied Consent rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/92-3
- Georgia Rules and Regulations, Chapter 92-4 — Independent Scientific Examination of Evidence and Documentation rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/92-4
- Self v. State, 232 Ga. App. 625 (1998) law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/1998/a98a0666-0.html
- Schlanger v. State, 290 Ga. App. 407 (2008) law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2008/a07a1866.html
- McElwee v. State, 147 Ga. App. 84 (1978) law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/1978/55857-0.html
- Buffington v. State, 192 Ga. App. 365 (1989) law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/1989/77413.html
- Swanson v. State, 248 Ga. App. 551 (2001) law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2001/a00a2382-0.html