at 489-90. Accordingly, the Court held that the officers investigating the case “had no due process duty to collect bloodstained articles found at the scene of the crime to preserve them for defendant’s use.” Id. at 490. C. While we recognize the rule that police officers generally have no duty to collect all potential evidence from a crime scene, we conclude that this rule is not absolute. We do not condone shoddy and inadequate police investigation procedures at the expense of a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial. In some eases, the State’s failure to gather evidence may amount to suppression of material evidence. See Bradley, at 491 (noting that police “might have a duty at some point to seize an item of evidence”); People v. Vigil, 718 P.2d 496, 503 (Colo.1986) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); State v. Powers, 555 So.2d 888, 890
holding that the states duty to preserve evidence attaches at the time the state has gathered and taken possession of the evidence recognizing states duty to preserve relevant evidence where practical holding that government did not suppress evidence when defendant knew about the existence of the evidence and could obtain it through the exercise of reasonable diligence holding that the state is not allowed to suppress evidence but it need not collect evidence for the defendant recognizing that state agents may suppress evidence by failing to collect and preserve the evidence when performing routine procedures