 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Clyde Hill v. Rodriguez5/26/1992
the time of arrest should inform the suspect that he or she has a "right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his or her choosing as provided in RCW 46.61.506." (Italics ours.) RCW 46.20.308(2). No cases have required inclusion of the statutory reference to RCW 46.61.506 in the warning. As we noted above, the proposition that such specificity is required, or for that matter even desirable, was rejected in Richardson.
The language which the people themselves used in describing the right in question, in RCW 46.20.308, is sufficiently clear to give to a person of average mentality the understanding that he may have his own tests made if he fears the accuracy or fairness of the test to be given by law enforcement officers. It is this information which he needs in order to make his decision whether to submit to a test, and it, plus the information that his license will be revoked or denied if he refuses, is all that is necessary to the exercise of an intelligent judgment upon that question.
This interpretation of the statute does not, as the respondents suggest, render the language "as provided in RCW 46.61.506" superfluous or meaningless. That section does elucidate in some detail the meaning of the words "qualified person" and a reference to it is logical. The advice given must be in harmony with that section, and if the arrested person decides to exercise his right to have additional tests made, he may ask for the further information which can be found in that section.
81 Wash. 2d at 116.
We do not believe that reference to another statutory section would be of any practical or substantive value to a DWI suspect at the time of arrest. In fact, only one of the
six subsections of RCW 46.61.506 even relates to the right of an accused to have "one or more tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer." RCW 46.61.506(5); Richardson, 81 Wash. 2d at 114-15. The other five sections describe testing standards, qualifications of the persons administering tests and the right, which is not included in implied consent warnings mandated by RCW 46.20.308, of the accused to all information concerning the test administered by the police.
The better approach is suggested by the above quoted language from Richardson; i.e., "if the arrested person decides to exercise his [or her] right to have additional tests made, he [or she] may ask for the further information". 81 Wash. 2d at 116. The arrested person is free to ask for further information concerning the types of independent tests that may be obtained and who is qualified to perform them. We agree with the Richardson court that
it can be assumed rather safely that a person under the influence of intoxicating liquor will be better able to grasp a brief statement of his rights than a lengthy exposition of them.
81 Wash. 2d at 116. An accused may direct inquiries about the details of his right to obtain other tests to the arresting officer or, even better, to the counsel to which he or she is entitled. The purpose of the implied consent warning will then be met without the danger of confusing or misleading the arrestee.
Reversed.
Disposition
Holding that the driver was adequately warned of his right to other tests, the court reverses the ruling.
Forrest, J. (dis
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.
|
|