 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Clyde Hill v. Rodriguez5/26/1992
rm the driver of his rights.
The majority suggests that a statement which informs the driver of his right to a blood test would not be completely accurate because there is a possibility that tests of other bodily substances, such as urine, might be admissible at trial. This logic is unpersuasive. Blood tests are clearly admissible as evidenced by RCW 46.61.506. It seems strange and indefensible to fail to inform the driver of his right to admissible impeachment evidence because he might infer there is no right to other arguably inadmissible evidence. As stated by the Supreme Court in State v. Whitman Cy. Dist. Court, 105 Wash. 2d 278, 287, 714 P.2d 1183 (1986), " n advisement of rights does not purport to address intricate evidentiary questions."
At the very least, I think that the Town was required to follow the language of RCW 46.20.308 and make explicit reference to RCW 46.61.506. It is true that few, if any, drivers would know what that statute provided. However, mentioning it by number would suggest an inquiry as to its contents. The officer could then either make it available or read the applicable portions. This approach at least complies literally with the statutory requirement and is more likely to lead the driver to an inquiry which will indeed fully inform him of his rights.
I would reverse the conviction because of the failure of the Town's warning to include the reference to RCW 46.61.506 and I would announce a rule requiring that the driver be advised in substance that he or she has the right to secure an additional breath test or a blood test.
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.
|
|