Schade v. Department of Transp.
| Decision Date | 06 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | CA-CV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 175 Ariz. 460,857 P.2d 1314 |
| Parties | Michael Edward SCHADE, Petitioner/Appellee, v. The DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent/Appellant. 92-0126. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The state appeals from a superior court order reversing the Department of Transportation's (DOT) suspension of appellee Michael Schade's driver's license for refusing to submit to a requested test, after he had already submitted to a breath test to determine his blood alcohol content (BAC). We reverse the superior court and reinstate the ruling of the DOT hearing officer.
The evidence at Schade's license suspension hearing established that on July 31, 1991, Safford, Arizona police and fire departments responded to a vehicular fire at a town intersection. Officers Hinton and Fox separately interviewed bystanders who had pulled Schade from his car, where he was reportedly found stuporous, strapped in his seat belt with his foot depressing the accelerator, causing the engine to race. After the fire was extinguished, Officer Hinton found two small containers of a substance he suspected was marijuana in the middle console of the front seat.
Meanwhile, Officer Fox had approached Schade, who was standing up, leaning on the door of a bystander's vehicle, appearing confused and disoriented. When the officer asked if he were all right, Schade said he was fine but that he did not know what happened or how his car caught fire. The officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol on Schade's breath, and "what appeared to be vomit on his shirt." When asked if he had been drinking, Schade replied that he had just come from Saddleman's, a local bar. Fox then administered field sobriety tests.
After Schade failed these tests, Officer Fox arrested him and transported him to the Graham County Jail. Upon arrival, the officer "heard the noise of [Schade's] head hitting the side window of [the] patrol vehicle," and had to awaken him to escort him inside because he was unconscious in the back seat. Officer Fox observed Schade for twenty minutes, read him his Miranda rights, 1 and advised him under Arizona's "implied consent law," A.R.S. § 28-691. Schade performed a requested Intoxilyzer test which indicated a BAC of .148 per cent. Fox then asked Schade to provide a urine sample. Schade responded with several expletives, stating that he had already taken a breath test. When the officer asked him again, he refused.
Based on Officer Fox's affidavit of refusal, Schade's driver's license was suspended pursuant to § 28-691. The Motor Vehicle Division of DOT affirmed the suspension after a hearing, and Schade petitioned for review. The superior court vacated the suspension on the grounds that there was no justification for the officer's requesting the second test, and that Schade had fulfilled the requirements of the implied consent law. This appeal by the state followed.
When reviewing an administrative decision, courts are limited to determining whether the administrative action was illegal, arbitrary, capricious, or involved an abuse of discretion. Ontiveros v. Ariz. Dept. of Trans., 151 Ariz. 542, 729 P.2d 346 (App.1986). Because the hearing officer and the superior court based their decisions on legal conclusions or the legal effects of facts, we review both decisions for legal error, and are free to draw our own conclusions regarding the law. See Sanders v. Novick, 151 Ariz. 606, 729 P.2d 960 (App.1986); Eshelman v. Blubaum, 114 Ariz. 376, 560 P.2d 1283 (App.1977).
The state argues that once an officer has reasonable grounds to believe a person has been driving or in control of a vehicle while under the influence of liquor or drugs, § 28-691 expressly allows the officer to request a second test for intoxicants, whether or not there is further justification for such request. Alternatively, the state urges that if further grounds are necessary under the statute, they were present in this case.
Section 28-691 provides in pertinent part:
A. Any person who operates a motor vehicle within this state gives consent ... to a test or tests of his blood, breath, urine or other bodily substance for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration or drug content if arrested for any offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed in violation of this chapter ... while the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. The test or tests chosen by the law enforcement agency shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.
B. Following an arrest a violator shall be requested to submit to and successfully complete any test or tests prescribed by subsection A of this section, and if the violator refuses he shall be informed that his license or permit to drive will be suspended or denied for twelve months unless he expressly agrees to submit to and successfully completes the test or tests. A failure to expressly agree to the test or successfully complete the test is deemed a refusal....
Pointing to the disjunctive language in the last sentence of subsection A, Schade argues that the consent statute should be narrowly construed to require an arrest for either driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or driving under the influence of drugs, and that "in each instance the implied consent is limited to [a] test or tests on one bodily substance--breath, blood, urine, or other bodily substance." Schade cites a Utah decision, Ringwood v. Utah, 8 Utah 2d 287, 333 P.2d 943 (1959), which interpreted a statute similar to an earlier version of the Arizona statute. That case is not helpful here because the Utah statute did not address driving under the influence of drugs or contain the language "test or tests" found in our statute. Schade also contends that his theory is consistent with the 1990 amendments to § 28-692 pertaining to replicate breath testing.
The purpose of the implied consent law is to remove from Arizona highways those drivers who may be a menace to themselves and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State Of Ariz. V. MONTOYA
...code); Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 186 (important interests served by obtaining suspect's name during stop); Schade v. Dep't of Transp., 175 Ariz. 460, 461, 857 P.2d 1314, 1315 (App. 1993) (defendant tested for intoxication after appearing "confused and disoriented"). f15 Montoya also argues, howev......
-
Caretto v. Arizona Dept. of Transp.
...and increasing the certainty that impaired drivers are penalized even if they refuse testing. Schade v. Department of Transp., 175 Ariz. 460, 462-63, 857 P.2d 1314, 1316-17 (App.1993). In furtherance of these purposes, the legislature has imposed on law enforcement officers the duty to obta......
-
McMurren v. JMC Builders, Inc.
...the administrative action was illegal, arbitrary, capricious, or involved an abuse of discretion." Schade v. Department of Transp., 175 Ariz. 460, 461, 857 P.2d 1314, 1315 (App.1993). When the issue involves an interpretation of law, however, "the [superior] court ... [is] free to draw [its......
-
Pearson v. Motor Vehicle Div., Dept. of Transp.
...of Arizona State Senate Committee on the Judiciary, H.B. 2273, at 14-16 (April 7, 1987) cited in Schade v. Department of Transp., 175 Ariz. 460, 462, 857 P.2d 1314, 1316 (App.1993). As part of this expedited process, the legislature also amended A.R.S. section 28-691(D) so that certified re......