 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. BUTLER11/15/1995
The State appeals, pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 2115-A (1980 & Supp. 1994), an order of the District Court (Waterville, Anderson, J.) granting defendant Jeffrey Butler's motion to suppress evidence of his refusal to take a breath test. The State contends that the court erred in its interpretation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (Pamph. 1994). We agree and vacate the order of suppression.
At approximately 1:30 AM on August 15, 1994, Butler was stopped by Officer Michael Grizkewitsch of the Waterville Police Department. Grizkewitsch observed Butler operate his motor vehicle at speeds well in excess of the posted limit, make a wide turn causing his car to go over a sidewalk curb, and straddle the center yellow line for a distance of approximately two hundred feet. After smelling alcohol emanating from the car, Grizkewitsch asked Butler to perform three field sobriety procedures. In Grizkewitsch's opinion, Butler failed all three. Butler was arrested and taken to the Waterville Police Department.
At the police station Grizkewitsch read to Butler an Implied Consent Form supplied to the police department by the Bureau of Motor Butler told Grizkewitsch that he did not understand the form's meaning. Grizkewitsch attempted to paraphrase it. Butler again said that he did not understand. Grizkewitsch read the form to Butler six times. Butler consistently maintained that he did not understand what was being read to him. After repeatedly attempting to explain the form, Grizkewitsch then told Butler that it required his signature. Butler signed the form, acknowledging that he had been advised of the consequences of failing to take a chemical test and that he did not wish to take the test. Butler repeated that he did not understand.
After Butler signed the form, he stated to Grizkewitsch that he would take a blood test. Butler testified at the hearing that his reason for offering to take a blood test but refusing the breath test was that he was concerned with the reliability of the Intoxilyzer machine.
Following a plea of not guilty, Butler filed a motion to suppress evidence relating to the stop, his arrest, and his refusal to take the breath test. The District Court denied the motion with regard to the stop and arrest, but granted it with regard to the refusal. The court reasoned that the failure to take a chemical test was not the fault of Butler because he told Grizkewitsch that he was willing to take a blood test. Therefore, nothing of value could be inferred from Butler's failure to submit to a chemical test because there was no "refusal." Relying on State v. Ayotte, 333 A.2d 436, 439 (Me. 1975), the court interpreted section 1312 as prohibiting police departments from restricting the form of chemical test available to one suspected of operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Grizkewitsch testified at the hearing that the Waterville Police Department routinely offers only breath tests because of the expense of blood tests. The court found the department's policy to be in contravention of the statute.
A ruling on a motion to suppress based on uncontroverted facts involves a legal conclusion that we review independently on appeal. State v. Dube, 655 A.2d 338, 340 (Me. 1995).
The District Court's reliance on State v. Ayotte is misplaced. In Ayotte we recognized that the purpose of the implied consent law was "to increase the availability of reliable evidence as to the true state of a driver's sobriety." Ayotte, 333 A.2d at 439. We also recognized that the statute as it was then written allowed a defendant to choose between a breath and a blood test. The Legislature, however, has since removed that choice. P.L. 1985, ch. 412, § 1. As amended, sect
Page 1 2 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|