What do other offices do when you have a case where the PD has lost the video and there is no breath or blood?

Would it change if the officer says that Defendant admitted to drinking before driving?

We prosecuted and convicted people before the days of in-car videos and breath/blood tests. If the officer can testify to the defendant's behavior well enough to satisfy your jury, then I would say go for it.

Depending on how strong the officer's testimony is (and how my juries have been in the past as far as demanding video evidence), I might be more inclined to work out a plea. But I wouldn't toss it out.

Half the time, the videos don't help because the guy doesn't look as bad on the video as the jury expects--no falling down, etc. Not having a video has never been a deal breaker for me--but hopefully your officer can explain why there is no video so the defense is not able to convince them the video would exonerate the defendant. I worry more about the offier's ability to explain the SFST's, and the HGN especially.