Summary
This Intermediate Court of Appeals summary disposition order addresses the State’s appeal of a district court’s order suppressing a defendant’s breath alcohol concentration (BAC) test results in an OVUII prosecution. The State argued that the implied consent form was not defective despite omitting references to a constitutional right to refuse testing and highly intoxicated driver penalties. The appellate court vacated the suppression order, holding that the statutory language requiring advisement that a suspect may refuse testing was sufficient and that neither the constitution nor the implied consent statute mandates disclosure of specific criminal penalties on the form.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the implied consent form must use the phrase "Constitutional right to refuse" a test.
- Whether the implied consent form must inform a defendant of the enhanced penalties for a highly intoxicated driver (BAC > .15).
Holdings
- The statutory language "may refuse" satisfies the requirement; the form is not defective for lacking the phrase "Constitutional right to refuse".
- The implied consent form is not required to disclose the enhanced penalties; the district court erred in finding the form defective on that basis.
Key quotations
“The implied consent form sufficiently informed Nguyen, in accordance with the applicable statute, that he "may refuse to submit to a breath or blood test, or both for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration."”
Factual background
Nguyen was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence. An implied consent form was read to him, stating he "may refuse" a breath or blood test but did not inform him of the constitutional right to refuse or the enhanced penalties for a BAC over .15. Nguyen testified he would not have taken the test had he known the penalties. The district court suppressed the BAC results.
Procedural history
The district court granted Nguyen's motion to suppress his breath alcohol concentration test, finding the implied consent form defective. The State appealed, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the decision.
Remand instructions
For further proceedings consistent with this Summary Disposition Order.