 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kimsey v. Wyoming Department of Transportation1/30/2002
al for the purposes of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102(d) (LexisNexis 2001). Farmer v. State, Dep't of Transp., 986 P.2d 165, 167-68 (Wyo. 1999). We reiterated the policy considerations behind this bright line rule:
Implied consent laws generally have three objectives: "(1) to discourage individuals from driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicants[;] (2) to remove the driving privi leges from those individuals disposed to driving while inebriated[;] and (3) to provide an efficient means of gathering reliable evidence of intoxication or nonintoxication." [Department of Licensing v. Lax, 125 Wash.2d 818, 888 P.2d 1190, 1193 (1995)] (citing Nowell v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 83 Wash.2d 121, 516 P.2d 205 (1973)). Id. at 167.
[ ] The fundamental flaw with Kimsey's argument is that he fails to present any evidence to establish that he immediately took a breathalyzer test upon request. It is undisputed that he did ultimately take several breathalyzer tests, but it is impossible to tell when Kimsey's witnesses might have heard this conversation.
[ ] We are not persuaded by Kimsey's attempt to convince us that he complied with this rule by arguing that a .17 reading lends itself more to a conclusion that he took the test right away. All that reading showed was that Kimsey had a substantial amount of alcohol in his system at the time it was taken. It has absolutely no value in proving the timing of the test or whether Kimsey initially refused to take it. We hold that the hearing examiner's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
C. Motion for New Trial And/Or Relief From Judgment
[ ] Kimsey finally asserts that the hearing examiner abused his discretion when he denied Kimsey's Motion for New Trial And/Or Relief From Judgment. In his argument on this issue, Kimsey claims that newly discovered evidence corroborates that he took a breathalyzer test immediately upon being arrested. He maintains that two inmates who were incarcerated with his wife heard a conversation between the detention officer and Kimsey's wife indicating that her husband had been put in jail and that he had blown a .179. Kimsey offers affidavits from the two witnesses to this effect.
[ ] The affidavits from these witnesses fail to establish when the test result was obtained. The witnesses were not privy to any discussions among Kimsey and the officers, and their statements in no way prove that Kimsey did not initially refuse to take a breathalyzer test. We agree with the hearing examiner's observation that the testimony, even if taken as true, "does not indicate whether or not the test allegedly taken by [Kimsey] was for the jail's internal purposes or whether the test was a test taken pursuant to Wyoming's implied consent law." Accordingly, we hold that the hearing examiner properly denied Kimsey's motion.
[ ] Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|