 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Clyde Hill v. Rodriguez5/26/1992
On March 9, 1989, Joseph Rodriguez was arrested for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. At the police station, Rodriguez was given his Miranda warnings and warnings regarding his implied consent to submit to a breath test pursuant to RCW 46.20.308. The implied consent warning, which was in written form, stated:
You are now under arrest for driving while intoxicated.
You are now being asked to submit to a test of your breath which consists of two separate samples of your breath, taken independently to determine the alcohol content.
According to the law I must advise you that you have the right to refuse to submit to the breath test. If you refuse, your privilege to drive will be revoked or denied by the Department of Licensing, and your refusal to take the test may be used in a criminal trial.
You further have the right to take one or more tests administered by a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of your choosing.
Rodriguez signed the form and submitted to a breath test. The reading exceeded the legal limit.
Rodriguez was charged with violation of RCW 46.61.502, driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI). He made a motion in District Court to suppress evidence of his breath test, arguing that the implied consent warning he received was inadequate. The District Court granted the motion. It ruled that the warning was inadequate because it failed to conform exactly to the language of RCW 46.20.308(2), which mandates such warnings. That statute provides, in part, that
he officer shall inform the person of his or her right to refuse the breath or blood test, and of his or her right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his or her choosing as provided in RCW 46.61.506.
(Italics ours.) On September 12, 1990, the Superior Court summarily affirmed the District Court's ruling.
The District Court ruled that the warning in this case was inadequate for two reasons. First, it found that the language of the warning given to Rodriguez did not make it clear that he had the right to take tests of a type different from the breath test. Because it did not specifically name other types of tests, the District Court found that Clyde Hill's warning could be understood to mean only that Rodriguez had the right to take additional breath tests. Second, the court concluded that law enforcement was in fact required to use the precise language of the statute, or in the alternative, language which the Supreme Court set forth in State v. Bartels, 112 Wash. 2d 882, 774 P.2d 1183 (1989), in giving the implied consent warning. Because the language of Clyde Hill's form was not precisely the same as either of these, the court determined that the warning given was insufficient.
The purpose of the implied consent statute, RCW 46.20.308, is to provide warnings to the defendant which enable him or her to make a knowing and intelligent decision as to whether to submit to a breath test. State v. Whitman Cy. Dist. Court, 105 Wash. 2d 278, 282, 714 P.2d 1183 (1986). The purpose of allowing additional tests is to give the defendant a chance to impeach the breath test administered by law enforcement. State v. Stannard, 109 Wash. 2d 29, 35, 742 P.2d 1244 (1987). As was stated by the Supreme Court in State v. Canaday, 90 Wash. 2d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Washington DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|