 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Braun v. Motor Vehicle Division9/12/1989
st to administer first "does not create an irrevocable election binding on the agency, and does not prohibit the request of additional or different tests." Id. at 705, 298 N.W.2d at 222.
Likewise, the provision of A.R.S. § 28-691 allowing the law enforcement agency to designate and choose which test or tests to administer does not, through the agency's internal policy, create an irrevocable election binding the agency as to which test is to be offered first. The statute clearly allows a law enforcement agency to designate more than one test which may be administered under A.R.S. § 28-691. Once it does so, nothing in the statute mandates the order in which the tests are offered. An officer who violates the internal policy of his or her agency may be required to explain that action to his superiors, but such a violation does not involve A.R.S. § 28-691.
Whether an arresting officer is permitted to select a chemical sobriety test prescribed in A.R.S. § 28-691(A) that has not been designated by the officer's agency
is not before this court and we do not decide that issue in this opinion. We only hold that where, as here, a law enforcement agency has selected more than one test as proper under A.R.S. § 28-691, the statute does not condition the application of suspension on whether the arresting officer has followed the internal policy of his or her agency in deciding which test to offer first.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the decision of the superior court is reversed and the decision of the Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division, suspending appellee's driver's license is reinstated.
Page 1 2 3 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|