 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harris v. State9/27/2000
fficer convinced him that a blood test would not help him. In Lau, the officer actually dissuaded Lau from exercising the right to the independent test. In Harris' case, however, the record indicates just the opposite; Harris was not dissuaded from exercising his right. Despite Ridling's statement, Harris wanted to speak with an attorney, but could not do so because he was unable to contact one in a timely fashion. Nothing in the record supports Harris' implicit argument that the trooper interfered with his Copelin right because Harris would have spoken to an attorney but for Ridling's comment.
Conclusion
The record shows that Harris' belated request to contact counsel was unreasonable. Additionally, Judge Bolger's decision that Ridling did not interfere with Harris' Copelin right is supported by the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|