People v. Einset, Docket No. 88599
| Decision Date | 14 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 88599 |
| Citation | 405 N.W.2d 123,158 Mich.App. 608 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karl Olav EINSET, Defendant-Appellee. 158 Mich.App. 608, 405 N.W.2d 123 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[158 MICHAPP 609] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Paul L. Maloney, Pros. Atty., and Brian S. Berger, Asst. Prosecutor, for the People.
Butzbaugh & Ehrenberg by Ellen W. Butzbaugh, St. Joseph, for defendant-appellee.
Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and T.M. BURNS and JOSLYN, * JJ.
The people appeal by leave granted from a circuit court order dismissing the charge against defendant Karl Einset of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, contrary to M.C.L. Sec. 257.625; M.S.A. Sec. 9.2325. The sole issue before us is whether M.C.L. Sec. 257.625a; M.S.A. Sec. 9.2325(1) requires police officers to inform a defendant arrested for OUIL that he has an unconditional right to obtain a blood-alcohol level test administered by a person of the defendant's own choice. The circuit court held, as defendant maintained, that the right to an independent blood-alcohol test does not depend upon whether an accused first submits to the test requested by a police officer. We reverse.
On January 18, 1984, Einset was arrested by Michigan State Police troopers for allegedly operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor. Defendant was transported to the state police post, where he was informed of his chemical test rights by the arresting officer. The pertinent recitation of rights, taken from a standard form, was:
The officer asked Einset to submit to a Breathalyzer test. Apparently, Einset declined, and no chemical tests were administered.
Defendant first raised his claim of improper advice of rights before the district court. His motion to dismiss was denied, and he obtained leave to appeal to the circuit court. Following the circuit court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss on appeal, we granted leave to appeal to this Court.
M.C.L. Sec. 257.625a; M.S.A. Sec. 9.2325(1) sets forth the presumptions afforded to blood-alcohol level tests, and regulates the conditions under which the tests may be administered. The crux of this case is found in subsection (5), which provides:
Defendant and the circuit court focused upon the last sentence of subsection 5, which contains no conditional language regarding a defendant's right to an independent test, to conclude that the right to an independent test is unconditional. Since the chemical test rights related to Einset indicated that the right to an independent test was conditional, the circuit court held that Einset had been improperly deprived of the opportunity to obtain exculpatory evidence.
We first note...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hawkins, Docket No. 116268
...The primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. People v. Einset, 158 Mich.App. 608, 611, 405 N.W.2d 123 (1987), lv. den. 428 Mich. 893 (1987). The first criterion is the specific language of the statute. Id. M.C.L. Sec. 257.625(1)......
-
People v. Dewey
...was conditioned upon the taking of a chemical test administered at the request of police officers. Similarly, in People v. Einset, 158 Mich.App. 608, 612, 405 N.W.2d 123 (1987), lv.den. 428 Mich. 893 (1987), this Court held that the statute, as amended, makes the right to an "independent" t......
-
People v. Tipolt, Docket No. 145290
...The primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. People v. Einset, 158 Mich.App. 608, 611, 405 N.W.2d 123 (1987). Rule 325.2653 provides the Rule 3. (1) An evidential breath alcohol test instrument shall be verified for accuracy at ......
-
Pietroczewski v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, Docket No. 100264
...period, whether this is thirty days or any lesser period. Moreover, a statutory provision must be read as a whole. People v. Einset, 158 Mich.App. 608, 405 N.W.2d 123 (1987). The last phrase of the section indicates that the Legislature was not concerned with a calculated maximum based sole......