 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moses v. State10/5/2001
earlier decision to refuse to submit to the required breath test). While Moses now claims that he would have asked for the test had he known that the test would have resulted in "evidence for ," or have been "in favor," this does not support his argument that he lacked an understanding of the test.
In Crim v. Anchorage we rejected a similar claim. We concluded that a waiver could be valid even though the arrested motorist might not be able to "assess the potential advantages and disadvantages of availing himself of the [test];" in other words, a valid waiver did not require that Crim know whether the independent test results would be favorable or unfavorable. We concluded that it was sufficient that Crim was notified of the right, that the record showed that he was aware that he had been arrested for DWI, and that he generally understood that the purpose of the independent test was to obtain evidence of his blood alcohol content.
In Moses's case, he was notified of his right to the test, and he chose not to obtain an independent test because he "didn't think . . . it would have been in favor" and because he "didn't think it would have been evidence for ." In short, Moses's argument, like Crim's, is not that he lacked an understanding of his right to the independent test, but that he did not know whether the test results would be favorable to him.
Moses's testimony shows that he was aware that he had been arrested for DWI and that he was informed of the right to an independent test. After refusing the mandatory breath test, Moses did not want to generate evidence that could be used against him. This shows that Moses made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to obtain an independent chemical test. Accordingly, we find no error.
Conclusion
The convictions are AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|