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 Defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on March 25, 1995, where he rear-ended another vehicle. Upon investigation, a police officer observed signs of intoxication, including the Defendant's strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and swaying. The Defendant admitted to consuming two beers and failed three field sobriety tests. He was arrested for aggravated driving while intoxicated (DWI) and "following too closely." Subsequent breath tests showed a blood alcohol level of .17 (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant of DWI (first offense) but dismissed the "aggravated" DWI charge and the "following too closely" charge due to procedural issues (para 7).
- District Court: Affirmed the metropolitan court's conviction of DWI (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) there was no probable cause for his arrest, (2) the breath alcohol test results should be suppressed due to procedural violations, (3) he was not properly informed of his right to an independent sobriety test, and (4) the police violated his statutory right to have a person of his choosing draw his blood, which also infringed on his due process rights (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the arrest was lawful, the breath test results were admissible, and the police substantially complied with statutory requirements. They also argued that the Defendant was not prejudiced by any procedural violations (paras 8-10, 13-14).
Legal Issues
- Was there probable cause for the Defendant's arrest?
- Should the breath alcohol test results have been suppressed due to procedural violations?
- Did the police adequately notify the Defendant of his right to an independent chemical test?
- Does the statute allow a Defendant to choose who draws and analyzes their blood for an independent test?
- Was the Defendant prejudiced by the police's failure to allow him to contact a person of his choosing to perform the blood test?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's DWI conviction (para 33).
Reasons
Per Benny E. Flores J. (Pickard and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
Probable Cause for Arrest: The Court found that the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest the Defendant based on his observations at the accident scene, including signs of intoxication and the Defendant's failure of field sobriety tests. This constituted substantial evidence of probable cause (paras 8-10).
Breath Alcohol Test Results: The Court held that the breath test results were admissible because the arrest was lawful, and the police substantially complied with statutory notice requirements. The notice given, while not verbatim to the statute, adequately informed the Defendant of his rights (paras 12-20).
Right to Independent Test: The Court interpreted the statute to grant arrestees the right to choose who draws and analyzes their blood for an independent test. However, the statute only requires that arrestees be given a reasonable opportunity to arrange for such a test, not a guarantee that it will be performed (paras 22-24).
Violation of Statutory Right: The Court found that the police violated the Defendant's statutory right by denying him access to a telephone to contact a person of his choosing. However, this violation did not prejudice the Defendant because the evidence of his intoxication was overwhelming, and the trial court had already dismissed the "aggravated" DWI charge as a remedy (paras 25-31).
Due Process: The Court rejected the Defendant's due process argument, holding that the remedy provided by the trial court (dismissal of the "aggravated" DWI charge) was sufficient to address any potential prejudice (para 32).