 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tapscott v. Municipality of Anchorage6/16/1999
Tapscott was transported to the police station; he arrived at 1:47 a.m.. Shortly after Tapscott arrived at the station, Officer Theodore Queen asked Tapscott if he wished to make a telephone call; Tapscott accepted this offer. The phone call was made at 1:55 a.m., and it lasted four minutes.
About twenty minutes later - at 2:13 a.m. - Officer Queen asked Tapscott to take the breath test. Tapscott refused. He was then advised of the consequences of refusing the test. At about this time (approximately 2:19 a.m.), Tapscott's wife called the police station and asked to speak to Tapscott. When she spoke to Tapscott, she apparently informed him that the attorney he had wanted to contact was not available.
Queen then told Tapscott that, in past instances when arrestees were unable to contact an attorney, the local law firm of Gorton and Associates had been able to provide assistance. Although Queen was apparently offering to let Tapscott make another telephone call, Tapscott did not ask to call Gorton and Associates - or anyone else.
Tapscott insisted that an attorney be present before he took the breath test. However, Tapscott could not tell Officer Queen whether an attorney had been contacted or when an attorney might be coming. Queen told Tapscott that he would not wait much longer for an attorney to arrive - that Tapscott would have to decide either to take the test or refuse it. Tapscott again refused to take the test.
A person arrested for driving while intoxicated has a right to consult an attorney before deciding whether to take the breath test, but this right must be exercised within a reasonable period of time. At the end of a reasonable time - generally, 15 to 20 minutes - the police can lawfully insist that the arrestee take the test. Here, the police waited more than 20 minutes before they asked Tapscott to finally choose whether to take the test.
Moreover, the record fails to support Tapscott's claim that the police hampered him in his attempt to consult an attorney before taking the breath test. To the contrary, the record reveals that the police never interfered with Tapscott's ability to make and receive telephone calls. At the moment of his arrest, Tapscott enlisted his son to contact an attorney for him. Tapscott's wife later added her efforts. When these efforts failed, the police suggested a local law firm that might be available for consultation; Tapscott declined to pursue this suggestion.
For these reasons, we reject Tapscott's claim that the police interfered with his right to consult counsel before deciding whether to take the breath test.
Because both of Tapscott's claims are meritless, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|