 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Gillett6/8/1981
JUSTICE QUINN delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to review the decision of the district court of Arapahoe County affirming the county court's dismissal of charges of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, section 42-4-1202(1)(a), C.R.S. 1973, separately brought against three defendants. In each case the county court found that the arresting officer advised the defendant of his or her rights under the implied consent law, section 42-4-1202(3), C.R.S. 1973, and requested the defendant to submit to chemical testing, but when the defendant then requested a blood test the officer did not comply with that request. The county court concluded that the actions of the arresting officers violated due process of law. The district court affirmed the order of dismissal but on a more narrow basis. It held that the implied consent law grants the arrested driver a statutory right to a blood test once the arresting officer invokes the law by requesting the driver to undergo chemical testing. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
I.
The defendants were arrested by officers of the Aurora Police Department on separate dates (Gillett on August 23, 1978; DeNolf on October 27, 1978; and Ross on November 21, 1978) for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Pursuant to section 42-4-1202(3)(b), C.R.S. 1973, the defendants were advised of their rights and of the probable consequences of a refusal to consent to a chemical test for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of their blood. In response to the arresting officer's request for a test, each defendant asked for a blood test in accordance with the advisement previously given. The arresting officers told the defendants that facilities were not available for a blood test and no tests of any type would be given. Because the defendants had consented to chemical testing the officers also told them that no administrative action would be initiated to revoke their licenses at that time.
Charges of driving under the influence were filed against the respective defendants. Each defendant thereafter filed motions to dismiss which were consolidated for hearing before the county court. Admitted into evidence during the hearing was a letter dated April 24, 1978, from the Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial District to various law enforcement agencies within the district, including the Aurora Police Department, which stated as follows:
"On April 21, 1978 a meeting was held among Aurora Community Hospital personnel, Aurora Presbyterian Hospital personnel, and the 18th Judicial District Attorney's Office personnel concerning the drawing of blood alcohols. Aurora Presbyterian and Aurora Community have indicated that as of May 10, 1978 they will not draw blood alcohols in non-injury situations. It is our further understanding that Swedish Hospital will continue to draw blood alcohols in both injury and non-injury situations. Aurora Community and Aurora Presbyterian have agreed to draw blood alcohols in an injury situation when possible.
"Law enforcement agencies should be aware of this change in policy and make appropriate arrangements either through a private nurse or physician or a hospital other than Aurora Community or Aurora Presby-terian to draw non-injury blood alcohols."
The county court concluded that the actions of the Aurora police officers were so unfair as to deny the defendants due process of law and granted the motions to dismiss. In a consolidated appeal to the district court it affirmed the order of dismissal on non-constitutional grounds, specifical
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|