 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bryant v. State ex rel Department of Transportation9/24/2002
At approximately 10:54 p.m. on December 10, 1999, Wyoming State Highway Patrol Officer N.M. Bisceglia clocked a semi-truck driven by Bryant at 95 mph in a posted 75 mph speed zone. As Officer Bisceglia turned onto the interstate to follow the truck, he observed Bryant fail to signal a lane change. Officer Bisceglia activated his overhead lights, but it took approximately another one-quarter mile before Bryant reacted to the officer's flashing lights and pulled over. As Bryant pulled the truck to the right, he ran over a delineator post and stopped with the left side of the truck remaining on the traveled portion of the highway. Officer Bisceglia requested various documents from Bryant, including his driver's license, and Bryant provided all the requested documentation. Officer Bisceglia summoned Bryant to his patrol car. While Bryant was in Officer Bisceglia's car, Officer Bisceglia noticed an odor of alcohol on Bryant's breath and noted that his eyes were watery and bloodshot. When Officer Bisceglia asked Bryant if he had been drinking, Bryant replied that he had consumed a bottle of Vicks 44-D.
[ ] Officer Bisceglia asked Bryant to perform standardized field sobriety tests so that he could assess whether Bryant was able to drive safely. Bryant agreed to perform the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, and when he did, Officer Bisceglia observed all three indicators of intoxication, specifically lack of smooth pursuit, distinct nystagmus prior to 45 degrees, and distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation. When Officer Bisceglia asked Bryant to perform a preliminary breath test, Bryant refused, stating that he would show up on the test because he had consumed the Vicks 44-D. He subsequently refused to perform any more sobriety tests. He also refused to submit to chemical testing. Officer Bisceglia informed Bryant that he had reason to believe that he was intoxicated and placed him under arrest for driving while under the influence of intoxicants (DWUI). When Officer Bisceglia inventoried the truck's contents, he discovered a bottle of rum that was approximately two -thirds empty underneath the bed of the sleeper. He did not find any bottles of cold medication.
[ ] In his signed statement, Officer Bisceglia indicated under penalty of perjury that he had read Bryant the following advisements and that Bryant nevertheless refused to submit to any chemical testing:
Implied Consent Advisement: . . .
I read the Implied Consent Advisement to the driver according to W.S. 31-6-102 for a Non-Commercial Offense.
I read the Implied Consent Advisement to the driver according to W.S. 31-6-102 & 31-7-307 for a Commercial Offense.
Chemical Test: . . .
The driver was requested to submit to the chemical test(s) prescribed by my agency but refused to do so.
Bryant subsequently signed a Refusal form, which provided in part:
2. You have been advised by a peace officer of the requirement to submit to all chemical tests and that your failure to do so shall result in a suspension of your driver's license or your privilege to operate a motor vehicle.
[ ] As a result of Bryant's refusal to submit to chemical testing, WyDOT notified Bryant of its intent to suspend his driver's license for six months and to disqualify his commercial license for one year. Bryant requested a contested case hearing, and the OAH heard the case on March 15, 2000. Bryant was the sole witness to testify, and he claimed that he did not remember being informed of the potential one-year penalty for refusing to consent to chemical testing under the commercial disqualification statute. He also testified that although he signed the Refusal form after he was arrested, he di
Page 1 2 3 4 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|