Hernandez

In Eleazer v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 847 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 464 P.2d 42 ], the California Supreme Court held that due *410 process requires that the police or prosecuting authority “make such inquiries and arrangements- as are reasonably necessary to enable the prosecution and defense to locate [an informer who is a material witness whose testimony might be helpful to the defense].” (1 Cal.3d at pp. 852-853.) In People v. Goliday (1973) 8 Cal.3d 771 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 113 , 505 P.2d 537 ], the high court ruled that this duty applies in the situation of informers who serve “as . . . active agent[s] of the police,” although the informers are unpaid for their services. ( 8 Cal.3d at p. 781 .) In People v. Hitch (1974) 12 Cal.3d 641 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 9 , 527 P.2d 361 ], the Eleazer-Goliday rationale served as a partial basis for the adoption of a principle requiring that the police and prosecution undertake reasonable precautions to preserve discoverable physical evidence that might come into their possession, and for the rule that in the context of a breathalyzer test failure of performance of this duty will result in the sanction of bar of other evidence that might…