Nelson v. State, 6222
| Decision Date | 24 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 6222,6222 |
| Citation | 650 P.2d 426 |
| Parties | Larry W. NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee. |
| Court | Alaska Court of Appeals |
James K. Tallman, Anchorage, for appellant.
W. H. Hawley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, and Wilson L. Condon, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.
Before BRYNER, C. J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.
On December 14, 1980, Larry W. Nelson was involved in an automobile accident in Anchorage near the intersection of Dimond Boulevard and the New Seward Highway. Upon their arrival at the scene of the accident, the police asked Nelson if he would submit to a breathalyzer examination, and he refused. Nelson was then transported to Providence Hospital for treatment of injuries received in the accident.
At the hospital, Nelson was treated in the emergency room by Dr. Donald Gene Hudson. Without any prompting from the police, Dr. Hudson ordered a blood test for alcohol, 1 though he neither requested authorization from Nelson to perform such a test nor informed him that he was going to do so. In fact, Nelson testified that due to the injuries to his head he was never aware of any blood sample being drawn from his body. Further, Nelson testified that he would have refused permission for such a test had he been asked.
At trial, the state sought to introduce as evidence the results of this blood test which showed Nelson's blood alcohol concentration to be .184 percent. Nelson moved to suppress this evidence prior to trial, and he objected to its introduction at trial. The trial court ruled the test results admissible, and Nelson was convicted of Driving While Intoxicated, AS 28.35.030(a)(1). He now renews his challenges on appeal to this court. We affirm.
Nelson first argues that once he refused to submit to a breathalyzer test, it was improper to subject him to a blood alcohol test. In making this argument, Nelson looks to Alaska's Implied Consent Statutes, AS 28.35.031 and 28.35.032, and he relies on Anchorage v. Geber, 592 P.2d 1187, 1191 (Alaska 1979), wherein it was held that once a breath test is refused, no other chemical test can be administered. While Geber does in fact stand for this proposition, we do not think it controls the disposition of this case.
The Implied Consent Statutes are not controlling here because the blood tests were conducted by private parties acting independently from the police. This distinction is supported by decisions from other jurisdictions. For instance, in State v. Enoch, 21 Or.App. 652, 536 P.2d 460 (1975), the defendant was taken to the hospital following an accident and a blood sample was taken. Shortly thereafter the police arrived and they were given some of the sample; they tested the sample and found it contained .30 percent alcohol. The Oregon court ruled the test results admissible, rejecting the defendant's contention that the implied consent law required his consent to the test. In so holding the court observed:
In his investigation, [the police officer] simply came upon the evidence taken by a third person, and when it was checked out it created a case against and cause for arrest of defendant.... [I]f an independent private citizen finds evidence and turns it over to the police, the evidence is legitimate.
Id. at 461 (citations omitted). This holding was later amplified in State v. Hilton, 49 Or.App. 927, 620 P.2d 970, 972 (1980), where the court said:
In Enoch, this court held that the defendant's consent was not required before a blood test, taken by hospital personnel while the defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Borchard-Ruhland, Docket No. 112436, Calendar No. 19.
...736 (1989); State v. Zielke, 137 Wis.2d 39, 403 N.W.2d 427 (1987); State v. Pitchford, 10 Kan.App.2d 293, 697 P.2d 896 (1985); Nelson v. State, 650 P.2d 426 (1982); State v. Baker, 184 Neb. 724, 171 N.W.2d 798 4. While conceding that the implied consent statute "provide[s] for the arrest of......
-
People v. Perlos
...other state courts have reached the same conclusion. See State v. Johnston, 108 N.M. 778, 779 P.2d 556 (1989); Nelson v. Alaska, 650 P.2d 426, 427 (Alas., 1982); Wisconsin v. Jenkins, 80 Wis.2d 426, 427-434, 259 N.W.2d 109 (1977); Turner v. Arkansas, 258 Ark. 425, 435-437, 527 S.W.2d 580 (1......
-
People v. England
...by the Fourth Amendment, since state action is not involved. Courts in other states have reached a similar conclusion. See Nelson v. State, 650 P.2d 426 (Alaska 1982); State v. Jenkins, 80 Wis.2d 426, 259 N.W.2d 109 (1977); Turner v. State, 258 Ark. 425, 527 S.W.2d 580 (1975); State v. Enoc......
-
State v. Smith
...v. Zielke, 137 Wis.2d 39, 403 N.W.2d 427, 432-33 (1987); State v. Pitchford, 10 Kan.App.2d 293, 295, 697 P.2d 896 (1985); Nelson v. State, 650 P.2d 426, 427 (Ak.1982); State v. Baker, 184 Neb. 724, 171 N.W.2d 798, 800 As courts in other jurisdictions have also concluded, however, such evide......