Grace v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 88-CVH-884

• Decision Date: 10 July 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-CVH-884,88-CVH-884
• Citation: 566 N.E.2d 1280,57 Ohio Misc.2d 43
• Parties: GRACE v. BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES.
• Court: Ohio Court of Common Pleas

Page 43

57 Ohio Misc.2d 43

566 N.E.2d 1280

GRACE v. BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES.

No. 88-CVH-884.

Montgomery County Court of Ohio.

July 10, 1989.

James H. McGee, Dayton, for petitioner.

Gregory Spears, Bowling Green, for respondent.

JEFFREY J. FROELICH, Judge.

In order to prevail, the petitioner must prove that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles erred in suspending petitioner's driving privileges pursuant to R.C. 4511.191. The petitioner has not shown that the law enforcement officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was operating a vehicle upon the highway while under the influence of alcohol or that the petitioner was not placed under arrest. Likewise, the petitioner has not shown that he did not refuse to submit to the chemical test upon the request of the officer.

The only question before the court then is whether or not the petitioner, John Grace, was advised, pursuant to the statute, of the consequences of his refusal. The officer has testified that he did not read the full form supplied by the state to the petitioner because the petitioner was so belligerent and adamant in his refusal to participate in the process. More specifically then, the question before the court is whether an operator of a vehicle must be advised of the consequences of a refusal, even if he has already refused and even if he is unwilling to listen to the consequences of such refusal. R.C. 4511.191(C) requires that any person arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, shall be advised of the consequences of his refusal to submit upon request to a chemical test designated by a law enforcement officer. Subsection (C) also provides that the advice shall be in written form prescribed by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and shall be read to the person. In subsection (D), the statute permits the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a person's license if, among other things, the person was advised of the consequences of his refusal as provided in subsection (C). In subsection (F), the statute sets forth the subject matter of the hearing and allows the scope of the hearing questioning the action of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to include whether the petitioner was advised of the consequences of his refusal.

The officer testified in this case that he did not read the entire form to the petitioner and is not sure how much he did read although he does believe he read the portion having to do with the consequences of the refusal. The court has no alternative but to find, as a matter of fact, that the petitioner was...