Halloway v. Martin
| Decision Date | 25 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CIV,1 |
| Parties | Edward HALLOWAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Juan MARTIN, Director of Motor Vehicle Division, Arizona Department of Transportation, Respondent-Appellee, and STATE of Arizona, Real Party In Interest-Appellee. 7412. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The issue in this case is whether, under the implied consent law, the state must prove that a breath test, even though refused, was in compliance with statutory and Department of Health Services standards before ordering a license suspension. We hold that such proof is not necessary and affirm the suspension decision.
The facts are undisputed. On September 17, 1982, a Department of Public Safety Officer observed the appellant weaving and exceeding the speed limit on I-17 in the city of Phoenix. The appellant was stopped, and the officer thereafter detected the odor of alcohol and gave the appellant a field sobriety test. In the opinion of the officer, the appellant failed the test. He was then arrested and taken to a DPS station at McDowell Road and the Black Canyon Freeway, where he was asked if he would submit to an intoxilizer test. After having been advised of the implied consent law, he refused to take the test.
On November 9, 1982, an order was issued which suspended the appellant's driving privileges for one year. The appellant then requested and received a Motor Vehicle Department hearing. The hearing officer found reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was in control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, that the individual was placed under arrest, and that he had refused to submit to the offered breath test. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to show that the test would have been performed according to methods approved by the Department of Health Services or that the officer who would have administered the test had a valid DHS permit, nor was there evidence of participation by the Department of Public Safety in a "quality assurance program," or use of a Department of Health Services check list designed to assure uniformity of procedures and results. The hearing officer ordered the driving rights of the appellant suspended for a twelve month period beginning in February, 1983.
After the appellant's request for rehearing was denied, he filed a complaint for special action. An order to show cause hearing was held in superior court, and both counsel submitted memoranda addressing the validity of the breath test, the principal issue raised in the complaint for special action. Attached to the state's memorandum was an exhibit purporting to show that the Department of Public Safety had complied with the applicable statutes and DHS regulations. Specifically, the state's exhibit asserted that, at the time the test was offered to the appellant, DPS had a quality assurance program in effect and that its intoxilizer procedures were approved by the Department of Health Services. On March 23, 1983 the superior court denied the relief to the petitioner and signed the order of suspension.
Arizona Revised Statutes § 28-691(E) sets forth the scope of the implied consent suspension hearing. It includes the requirement that the hearing officer find the person arrested "refused to submit to the test." "Test," as used in that subsection, is defined in subsections (A) and (B) of § 28-691. Subsection (B) requires that a violator be requested to "submit to any test prescribed by subsection (A)...." Subsection (A) reads, in part, "any person who operates a motor vehicle within this state gives consent, subject to the provisions of § 28-692, to a test or tests of his blood, breath, or urine...." (emphasis added).
Under A.R.S. § 28-692(G), any such analysis is not valid unless it is "performed according to methods approved by the department of health services...." According to appellant, the test administered in September of 1982 was not valid because it was not performed according to methods approved by the Department of Health Services. Thus, a "refusal to submit to the test " was not proven, and the suspension was improper.
Petitioner's argument is premised upon the decision of the supreme court in Fuenning v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 590, 680 P.2d 121 (1983). According to appellant, there was no evidence to show that the intoxilizer offered in September of 1982 was valid according to the standards set forth in Fuenning. We do not reach the issue of whether or not the certificate of approval submitted by the state complies with Fuenning. In our opinion, evidence of test validity is not relevant in a license suspension hearing.
As A.R.S. § 28-691 indicates, the scope of the implied consent suspension hearing is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conahan v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Driver Imp., 93-99
...although relevant to the admissibility of a breath test, are irrelevant where the test has been refused. See, e.g., Halloway v. Martin, 143 Ariz. 311, 693 P.2d 966 (App.1984) (validity of test refused is not relevant to review of suspension for refusal of test, but is only relevant if test ......
-
Rogers, In re
... ... Halloway v. Martin, 143 Ariz. 311, 693 P.2d 966 (Ct.App.1984); Moran v. Commonwealth, 44 Pa.Commw. 105, 403 A.2d 637 (1979); Bell v. Department of Motor ... ...
-
White v. State
... ... Holloway v. Martin ... ...
-
Wolfe v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety
...that the State need not prove that a valid test was available in instances of a refusal to take a test include: Halloway v. Martin, 143 Ariz. 311, 693 P.2d 966 (Ct.App.1984); Conahan v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Driver Improvement, 619 So.2d 988 (Fla.Dist.Ct......
-
Administrative hearings
...259 A.2d 671 (1969). Most courts have held that the validity of the test is irrelevant in a refusal hearing. See Halloway v. Martin , 143 Ariz. 311, 693 P.2d 966 (Ariz. App. 1984) where the court held that the state need not prove that a breath test, which was refused, was in compliance wit......