 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Farmer v. State9/9/1999
artment of Transportation, 947 P.2d 1294, 1295 (Wyo. 1997).
When interpreting statutes, the court looks at "the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed by the legislature according to the manner in which those words are arranged." Parodi, 947 P.2d at 1295. The interpretation of statutes is a question of law. Russell v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 944 P.2d 1151, 1155 (Wyo. 1997).
DISCUSSION
The main issue raised by Farmer concerns whether a person who has refused to submit to a chemical test to determine the presence of alcohol or controlled substances can, at a later time, attempt to rescind or cure their initial refusal. Farmer argues that his driver's license should not be suspended because his subsequent offer to submit to such a test cured his initial refusal approximately three and one-half hours earlier. The Department counters that once Farmer had refused to submit to a test, his license was automatically suspended under the statutory scheme and, therefore, any subsequent attempt to rescind that initial decision was futile.
State courts have split on this issue. We begin our analysis with the language of the relevant portion of our implied consent statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102(d) (LEXIS 1999), which provides:
(d) If a person under arrest refuses upon the request of a peace officer to submit to a chemical test designated by the agency employing the peace officer as provided in subsection (a) of this section, none shall be given except in cases where serious bodily injury or death has resulted. The peace officer shall submit his signed statement to the department. The statement submitted by the officer shall contain:
(i) His probable cause to believe the arrested person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle:
(A) On a public street or highway in this state;
(B) In violation of W.S. 31-5-233(b) or any other law prohibiting driving under the influence as defined by W.S. 31-5-233(a)(v); and
(ii) That the person refused to submit to a test upon the request of the peace officer.
(Emphasis added.)
The plain language of the statute does not support Farmer's position. The statute unambiguously states that if a person refuses to take a test, none shall be given. It does not provide any options for those who refuse a test. As we have stated before, when " aced with a legislative 'shall,' the courts must give effect to the legislative prescription and are without authority to carve out exceptions to the mandate." Bellamy v. Bellamy, 949 P.2d 875, 876-77 (Wyo. 1997) (citing State By and Through Department of Family Services v. Jennings, 818 P.2d 1149, 1150 (Wyo. 1991)). In this instance, the effect of the word "shall" in the statute precludes any discretion on the part of an officer to give a test after the driver has made a refusal. Therefore, in accordance with the legislative mandate, we adopt a bright line rule that once a driver refuses to take a test, any subsequent attempt to rescind or cure that refusal is ineffective against the legal consequences of the initial refusal for the purposes of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102(d).
Policy considerations behind the bright line rule were succinctly set forth by the court in Department of Licensing v. Lax, 888 P.2d 1190 (Wash. 1995). Implied consent laws generally have three objectives: "(1) to discourage individuals from driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicants[;] (2) to remove the driving privileges from those individuals disposed to driving while inebriated[;] and (3) to provide an efficient means of gathering reliable evidence
Page 1 2 3 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|