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 arrested for driving under the influence following a car accident. At the police station, he was asked to take a breathalyzer test but failed to provide an adequate sample despite three attempts. The officer deemed this a refusal. Later, at a hospital, the Defendant requested and underwent a blood alcohol test after consulting with counsel (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Hearing Officer: Determined that the Defendant refused to take the breath test, leading to the revocation of his driver's license (paras 4, 9).
- District Court: Reversed the hearing officer's decision, finding that the Defendant's failure to complete the breath test was due to physical disability from injuries sustained in the accident (para 10).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the Defendant refused the breath test as required by law and that the subsequent blood test did not cure the initial refusal (paras 1, 11).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that his injuries made it physically impossible to complete the breath test and that the blood test should cure any alleged refusal (paras 4, 10).
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant refuse to take the chemical breath test as required by law?
- Can a subsequent blood alcohol test cure an initial refusal to take a breath test under the Implied Consent Act?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the subsequent blood test cured the initial refusal (paras 1, 18).
Reasons
Per Chavez J. (Apodaca J. concurring):
The Court found substantial evidence supporting the hearing officer's determination that the Defendant refused the breath test. The officer testified that the Defendant showed no physical inability to blow into the machine, and the hearing officer was entitled to disregard the physician's letter supporting the Defendant's claim of physical incapacity (paras 7-9).
On the issue of whether the blood test cured the refusal, the Court adopted the five-factor test from State v. Moore (Hawaii) to determine if a subsequent consent can cure an initial refusal. These factors include the timeliness of the subsequent request, the accuracy of the test, the availability of testing equipment, the inconvenience to law enforcement, and whether the Defendant remained in custody (paras 14-15). The Court found that three of the five factors were met but remanded the case for further factual findings on the timeliness of the request and the accuracy of the blood test (paras 15-18).
Hartz J., dissenting in part:
Hartz J. agreed that the Defendant refused the breath test but dissented on the issue of remand. He argued that the Implied Consent Act does not allow for a refusal to be cured by a subsequent test and that the majority's decision undermines the legislative intent of expedited license revocation proceedings. He also noted that no jurisdiction has allowed a cure after a delay as long as two hours, as in this case (paras 20-30).