Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court held that admitting a defendant’s refusal to submit to a blood or breath test under Colorado’s express consent statute does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Relying on Fitzgerald v. People and related authority, the court reversed the trial court’s as-applied constitutional ruling and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether section 42-4-1301(6)(d), C.R.S. (2016), which permits the prosecution to introduce a motorist's refusal to submit to blood or breath testing in a DUI trial, is unconstitutional as applied to Maxwell.
- Whether admitting refusal evidence violates the Fourth Amendment or the Due Process Clause when law enforcement has not established exigent circumstances or another exception to the warrant requirement.
Holdings
- Section 42-4-1301(6)(d), C.R.S. (2016), is not unconstitutional as applied to Maxwell; the prosecution may use his refusal to consent to blood or breath testing as evidence of guilt in the DUI prosecution.
- Maxwell could not prevail on his as-applied challenge because the statutory admission of refusal evidence does not punish the exercise of a constitutional right; the absence of exigent circumstances or another warrant exception does not make the refusal evidence inadmissible on Fourth Amendment or due-process grounds.
Key quotations
“In Birchfield, the Supreme Court disapproved of implied consent laws that criminalize a driver’s refusal to undergo testing.” (¶ 10)
“Given our holding in Fitzgerald, Maxwell’s as-applied challenge to section 42-4-1301(6)(d) fails.” (¶ 11)
Factual background
After Depree Maxwell was involved in a car crash, responding officers observed signs of intoxication, including the smell of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and failure to perform voluntary roadside sobriety maneuvers. Maxwell admitted drinking vodka, was arrested for DUI, and received an advisement under Colorado's Expressed Consent Statute. He refused both blood and breath testing, and the trial court barred the prosecution from introducing that refusal as evidence of guilt.
Procedural history
After Maxwell was charged with DUI, he moved to declare Colorado's refusal-evidence statute unconstitutional on its face and as applied. The trial court rejected the facial challenge but granted the as-applied challenge, concluding that admitting refusal evidence where the prosecution had not established exigent circumstances or another exception to the warrant requirement would punish Maxwell for exercising a constitutional right and violate due process. The People filed an interlocutory appeal, and the Colorado Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion and with Fitzgerald v. People.