 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Farmer v. State9/9/1999
Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge
Donald J. Farmer appeals from an order of the district court affirming the decision of the Department of Transportation (Department) suspending his driver's license for refusing to submit to chemical testing pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 31-6-102 and -107.
We affirm.
ISSUES
Farmer states the issues for review as:
1.) Did the officer who stopped Mr. Farmer make the stop with reasonable suspicion under Wyoming Law?
2.) Does Mr. Farmer have the right to change his mind and revoke his initial refusal to submit to a test to determine the alcoholic or controlled substance content of his blood?
3.) Did Mr. Farmer "refuse" a chemical test to determine the alcoholic or controlled substance content of his blood as that term is used in the W.S. § 31-6-101 et seq.?
4.) Is there a way under the statute to afford a real opportunity for an accused to make an informed and well advised decision about alcohol testing and still not impede law enforcement in their duties? (Emphasis in original.)
The Department distills the matter down to a single issue:
Did Appellant have a right to "cure" his refusal to take a chemical test when requested by a peace officer by expressing his willingness to take the test three and one-half hours later?
FACTS
Farmer was arrested in Gillette, Wyoming, on February 18, 1998 for suspicion of driving while under the influence. Upon his arrival at the Campbell County Detention Center, Farmer was read an Implied Consent Advisement. Despite being advised of the consequences, Farmer refused to submit to a Breathalyzer test. Approximately three and one-half hours later, after contacting his attorney, Farmer requested that the test be administered. An officer, citing Farmer's earlier refusal, declined to administer the test.
Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102, the Department informed Farmer by letter on February 27, 1998 that his license had been automatically suspended for six months due to his refusal to submit to chemical testing. Farmer protested the suspension and requested a hearing. A contested case hearing was held on May 26, and July 1, 1998. The hearing officer upheld the license suspension based on his determination that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop, and Farmer had not rescinded his initial refusal to take a Breathalyzer test within a reasonable time. Farmer filed a petition for review in the district court challenging the decision of the hearing examiner. The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decision on October 30, 1998. The district court concurred with the hearing officer's determination that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of Farmer. The district court, however, did not accept the hearing officer's "reasonable time" analysis. Instead, it concluded that once Farmer had refused to take the test in the first instance, he could not rescind that decision, and the license suspension provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-107 applied. Farmer appeals that decision to this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the Department's decision as if the matter had come directly to us without affording any special deference to the district court's determinations. Nellis v. Wyoming Department of Transportation, 932 P.2d 741, 743 (Wyo. 1997). "Absent evidentiary dispute, the standard of review for contested case hearings is simply stated as whether an agency's Conclusions are in accordance with the law." Parodi v. Wyoming Dep
Page 1 2 3 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|