However, Deans did not characterize unreliability as an independent basis for the suppression of such test results; we merely held that where results were rehable it might render suppression unnecessary regardless of other factors, not that where results were unreliable, it might render suppression necessary even if other indicia were lacking. Moreover, Trombetta construed challenges to testing reliability as factual issues for the jury rather than issues to be determined by a court as a matter of law, and we see no reason to depart from that path. See 467 U.S. at 489-90, 104 S.Ct. 2528 (describing challenges to the reliability of the test as “comparable evidence” to be offered in rebuttal, not a justification for suppression); see also Trevino v. Dahm, 2 F.3d 829, 832 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Having concluded Fisher is the governing
holding as long as the defendant has an adequate opportunity to impeach the reliability of a scientific test and the qualifications of the person administering the test due process is not implicated by a states good faith failure to preserve a sample for independent testing holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief holding that a test of a urine sample implicates the fourth amendment holding that denial of an independent chemical test after defendant refused to submit to a policeadministered test did not violate due process holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation