State v. Braunesreither, 12380
| Citation | 276 N.W.2d 139 |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 12380,12380 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Kent L. BRAUNESREITHER, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
B. Elizabeth Godtland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Judith A. Atkinson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and respondent; William J. Janklow, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.
John P. Blackburn, Yankton, for defendant and appellant.
Motorist Kent C. Braunesreither's driver's license was revoked because of his refusal to take a chemical test by order of a Hearings Officer, Department of Public Safety, South Dakota, on April 21, 1977. He appealed to the circuit court. A trial de novo was held. On October 5, 1977, the learned trial court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment upholding the Hearings Officer's order. He now appeals from the circuit court's ruling. We affirm.
Immediately after his arrest at midnight on February 18, 1977, near Lesterville, South Dakota, Braunesreither was read the South Dakota Implied Consent warning which provided, in part, that "(i)f you refuse the test I have requested, your driver's license will be revoked for one year . . . ." At the arrest scene, the arresting officer asked the appellant if he wished to submit to the chemical test. Appellant gave no response. The officer explained to the appellant that he would have to have a verbal yes or no answer. Again, appellant gave no response. Appellant was then taken to the Yankton Police Station.
Upon his arrival at the station, the implied consent warning was read again. Braunesreither asked permission to call his attorney; his attempts at contacting an attorney were futile. After several requests to take the chemical test and several unsuccessful tries at contacting Braunesreither's attorney, the arresting officer advised Braunesreither that if he did not receive a yes or no answer the officer would consider the response a refusal to submit to the test. Instead of answering, Braunesreither repeatedly said "I want to talk to my lawyer." As the officer was writing a refusal, Braunesreither decided to take the test. The officer did not permit Braunesreither to take the test. An hour and a half had elapsed since Braunesreither had been first advised of his rights.
Under these circumstances, did Braunesreither's offer to take the chemical test nullify his earlier refusal? We hold that it did not.
Braunesreither argues that his several requests to consult with an attorney are not refusals under the implied consent law because the arresting officer gave him permission to attempt to consult with his attorney. Braunesreither places great emphasis on the officer's "permission." This factor, however, is irrelevant. In the Matter of the Revocation of the Driver's License of McKillop, S.D., 273 N.W.2d 126 (1978); Peterson v. State, S.D., 261 N.W.2d 405 (1977).
In the case at Bar, Braunesreither repeatedly would not answer yes or no as to whether he would take the test. His refusal to answer and unsuccessful attempts in reaching counsel for advice caused delay and was an attempt to impose a condition.
Braunesreither had only one choice, whether or not to take the test; he did not have the right to consult with counsel before deciding. Blow v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 83 S.D. 628, 164 N.W.2d 351 (1969)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sewell
...258 Iowa 1173, 1180–82, 140 N.W.2d 866, 870–71 (1966) ; State v. Jones , 457 A.2d 1116, 1119 n.6 (Me. 1983) ; State v. Braunesreither , 276 N.W.2d 139, 140 (S.D. 1979) (per curiam)). But the Maryland court focused on the fact that continued possession of a driver's license "may become essen......
-
Sites v. State
...testing. See Gottschalk v. Sueppel, 258 Iowa 1173, 140 N.W.2d 866 (1966); State v. Jones, 457 A.2d 1116 (Me.1983); State v. Braunesreither, 276 N.W.2d 139 (S.D.1979). Moreover, it is unclear whether the right to communicate with counsel found to exist by the New York Court of Appeals in Gur......
-
State v. Hoch
...v. Peterson, 208 Neb. 785, 305 N.W.2d 803 (1981); State v. Quaid, 172 N.J.Super. 533, 412 A.2d 1087 (Law Div.1980); State v. Braunesreither, 276 N.W.2d 139 (S.D.1979); Growe, 675 S.W.2d 564.7 The right construed by those courts was limited to whether an arrestee for DUI may have 15 to 30 mi......
-
Heles v. State of SD
...one choice, whether or not to take the test; he did not have the right to consult with counsel before deciding." State v. Braunesreither, 276 N.W.2d 139, 140 (S.D.1979). Braunesreither and Heles then joined in this action commenced in federal court, alleging constitutional violations attend......