 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clement v. State12/10/2001
Concurring: C. Kenneth Grosse, William W. Baker.
A motorist who refuses a test of his or her breath or blood alcohol level will have his or her driver's license revoked if the refusal occurred after a legal arrest for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI). Where the initial traffic stop of that motorist is based on the officer's belief that he or she was speeding, the Department of Licensing has the burden of proving that there was probable cause to believe that the motorist was speeding in order for the initial stop to be valid. Here, the trooper's belief that Jerome Clement was speeding was based on a fellow officer's radar reading and his own visual observations of Clement's car. We hold that, with this evidence, the Department met its burden of proving that the trooper had probable cause to believe Clement was speeding, and thus met its burden of proving the validity of the traffic stop. Accordingly, we reverse the superior court's order and direct that the Department's order revoking Clement's driver's license be reinstated.
FACTS
Washington State Patrol Trooper Rodriguez was operating a radar unit on I-5 and reported to Trooper Coglizer, who was working with him, that a car was approaching at 82 miles per hour. As the car passed the troopers, Trooper Coglizer saw the front end of the car dip, as if the driver had suddenly hit the brakes. Trooper Rodriguez then reported that his radar reading showed that the car was traveling at 77 miles per hour. Trooper Coglizer pursued the car and pulled it over, believing that the driver, who was later identified as Clement, was speeding. The trooper smelled a strong odor of alcohol in the car and saw that Clement's eyes were watery and bloodshot. Based upon these observations, Trooper Coglizer arrested Clement for DUI. Clement refused to submit to a breath test and, after a hearing, the Department revoked his driver's license.
Clement appealed the license revocation and the superior court reversed, finding that the record failed to establish an articulable suspicion to justify the initial stop of Clement's car. We granted the Department's motion for discretionary review and now reverse the superior court.
DISCUSSION
Under the implied consent statute:
{a}ny person who operates a motor vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506, to a test or tests of his or her breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration or presence of any drug in his or her breath or blood if arrested for any offense where, at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or was in violation of RCW 46.61.503 {driving under the age of 21 and consuming alcohol}.
Where, as here, a person refuses a test of his or her breath or blood for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration, the Department must revoke that person's driver's license. The Department revoked Clement's driver's license for one year.
We review an administrative decision such as a license revocation from the same position as the superior court. Under the implied consent statute, RCW 46.20.308, the superior court reviews the Department's final order of revocation in the same manner as an appeal from a decision of a court of limited jurisdiction. So, we review the order to determine whether the Department committed any errors of law.
A lawful arrest of the motorist is an indispensable element triggering the
Page 1 2 3 Washington DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|