This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns the revocation of the Driver's license after he refused to provide a second breath sample during a DWI investigation. The Driver initially provided one breath sample, but the breath test machine malfunctioned, requiring a two-hour delay for repairs. The Driver refused to provide a second sample after the delay, arguing that he had already complied and that the delay was unreasonable.
Procedural History
- District Court, Sandoval County: The court ruled that the Driver's refusal to provide a second breath sample did not constitute a "refusal" under the Implied Consent Act, as the testing procedure violated regulations requiring breath samples to be collected within 15 minutes of each other.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant-Respondent (Driver): Argued that he had already provided the required breath sample and that the two-hour delay caused by the malfunctioning machine made the request for a second sample unreasonable and contrary to regulations.
- Appellee-Petitioner (MVD): Contended that the Driver's refusal to provide a second breath sample constituted a refusal under the Implied Consent Act, relying on case law that mandates two breath samples and asserting that mechanical delays do not excuse compliance.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Driver's refusal to provide a second breath sample after a two-hour delay constituted a "refusal" under the Implied Consent Act.
- Whether the testing procedure violated regulations requiring breath samples to be collected within 15 minutes of each other.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Driver's refusal to provide a second breath sample after the two-hour delay did not constitute a refusal under the Implied Consent Act.
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Fry CJ and Sutin J. concurring):
The Court found that the Implied Consent Act requires two breath samples to be collected within 15 minutes of each other, as stipulated by regulation 7.33.2.12(B)(1) NMAC. The two-hour delay caused by the malfunctioning machine violated this requirement, and the Driver's refusal to provide a second sample under these circumstances did not amount to a refusal under the Act.
The Court distinguished prior case law cited by the MVD, noting that while drivers cannot refuse testing based on personal beliefs about reliability, they are not required to submit to tests that do not comply with legal requirements. The Court emphasized that mechanical malfunctions do not justify deviations from the 15-minute rule and that alternative testing methods, such as blood tests, were available to law enforcement.
The Court concluded that the MVD could not revoke the Driver's license based on a refusal to provide a second sample that was not mandated by law.