Couch v. Rice
| Decision Date | 14 April 1970 |
| Citation | 23 Ohio App.2d 160,261 N.E.2d 187 |
| Parties | , 52 O.O.2d 184 COUCH, Appellant, v. RICE, Registrar, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The results of a chemical test for alcohol of one accused of driving while intoxicated, made at the request of a police officer, are not admissible in evidence unless the accused was advised, as required by Section 4511.19, Revised Code, of his right to have a physician or other qualified person of his own choosing administer an additional test.
Sections 4511.19 and 4511.191, Revised Code, pertaining, respectively, to prosecution for driving while intoxicated, and to revocation of a driver's license by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for refusal to submit to a police test, are in pari materia. The registrar may not suspend a license for a driver's refusal to submit to a chemical test for alcohol at the request of a police officer, if such driver was not advised, as required in Section 4511.19, Revised Code, of his right to have an additional test.
James P. Jones, Columbus, for appellant.
Larry Smith, Dayton, for appellee.
Plaintiff, appellant herein, filed his petition in the Municipal Court of Miamisburg pursuant to Section 4511.191(F), Revised Code, to avoid the suspension by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, of his license to drive, for refusing to take a chemical test for alcohol.
The petition alleges that the arresting officer failed properly to advise him pursuant to statute regarding the test. His particular complaint is that he was not advised, as provided in Section 4511.19, of his right to have a physician, technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his own choosing administer an additional chemical test or tests.
In the judgment appealed from the court found: that the plaintiff was not advised of this right; but that he had failed, as required in Division (G) of Section 4511.191, Revised Code, to show error in one or more of the matters set forth in Division (F) of that statute. The court ordered his license suspended.
The prosecuting attorney concedes that the result of a test, conducted without the accused person being advised of his right to an additional test as provided in Section 4511.19, would be suppressible upon his prosecution for driving while intoxicated, but he contends that this requirement is not applicable in the matter of the registrar's revocation of the accused's license.
This distinction is, in our opinion, untenable. If the result of the test is not to be used, why give it? Sections 4511.19 and 4511.191, Revised Code, are in pari materia. The right to be advised, as provided by Section 4511.19, is stated in absolute terms and is not to be taken away by Section 4511.191.
The commendable purpose of all this legislation is the prosecution and punishment of drunken drivers. We have heretofore observed that the only proper use of the chemical test is to discover and prove the truth of a driver's suspected intoxication or his sobriety; and that the test is not the end and object of the statute. Groff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Baird
...test or tests."Connolly v . Dep't of Motor Vehicles , 79 Wash.2d 500, 504, 487 P.2d 1050 (1971) (quoting Couch v. Rice , 23 Ohio App.2d 160, 161, 261 N.E.2d 187 (1970) ). This court has further held that the warning that " ‘refusal to take the test may be used in a criminal trial’ " did not......
-
State v. Rivard
...after being advised of his right to have a physician....").53 Rivard, 80 Wash.App. at 638, 910 P.2d 520 (citing Couch v. Rice, 23 Ohio App.2d 160, 161, 261 N.E.2d 187 (1970)).54 Wetherell, 82 Wash.2d at 871, 514 P.2d 1069.55 Id. at 869, 514 P.2d 1069.56 94 Wash.2d 820, 620 P.2d 990 (1980).5......
-
White v. State
...as a "natural extension" of that case, relying on Connolly v. State, 79 Wash.2d 500, 487 P.2d 1050 (1971) and Couch v. Rice, 23 Ohio App.2d 160, 261 N.E.2d 187 (1970). We believe that such reliance is The decision in Connolly, supra, was based on the following Washington statute: R.C.W.A. 4......
-
State v. Myers
...exclusion from evidence of the police-administered test results. Other courts have answered affirmatively. See Couch v. Rice (1970), 23 Ohio App.2d 160, 261 N.E.2d 187; Bores v. Rice (1969), 17 Ohio Misc. 163, 244 N.E.2d It should be noted that here we are not confronted by any question of ......