State v. City Court of City of Tucson, 2
| Decision Date | 01 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Petitioner/Appellant, v. The CITY COURT OF the CITY OF TUCSON, the Honorable Rita Jett, a Magistrate thereof, Respondent, and John Otto MARTIN, Real Party in Interest. 5685. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Frederick S. Dean, City Atty. by R. William Call, Tucson, for petitioner/appellant.
Law Office of William Redondo by Patrick C. Hurd, Tucson, for real party in interest.
The state appeals from the superior court's denial of its requested special action relief. The real party in interest, John Otto Martin, was charged in Tucson City Court with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor and driving with a blood alcohol level of over .10%. Because the police officer did not permit Martin to telephone an attorney prior to his decision to take an intoxilyzer test, the city court magistrate made a pretrial ruling suppressing the results of the test. That ruling was the subject of the special action in the superior court.
The city court ruling was contrary to well established law; the superior court should have taken jurisdiction and granted relief. We reverse and remand to the city court with directions to vacate the suppression order.
Since our supreme court decided Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 479 P.2d 685 (1971), it has been the law in Arizona that a person is not entitled to the assistance of an attorney prior to deciding whether to submit to a blood alcohol test. Apparently both the magistrate and the superior court judge believed that Campbell was somehow changed by State v. Holland, 147 Ariz. 453, 711 P.2d 592 (1985). We do not believe it was. Holland turned on its own unique facts and, as we understand it, holds only that when a defendant is consulting with his attorney, he may do so in private. A violation of this right to counsel by the state may result in a sanction including even dismissal of the charge against him.
No such facts are present here. Upon being taken to police headquarters and read the implied consent law, A.R.S. § 28-691, Martin requested that he be allowed to speak with an attorney prior to deciding whether to submit to the test. He was told he had no right to the assistance of an attorney prior to deciding whether to take the test. He then took the test. The officer's refusal to let him try to reach an attorney was the basis for the suppression ruling.
We have purposely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kunzler v. Pima County Superior Court, CV
...to the assistance of an attorney prior to deciding whether to submit to a blood alcohol or breath test." State v. City Court of Tucson, 150 Ariz. 379, 723 P.2d 728 (App.1986). The court of appeals also based its decision on Campbell. We granted the defendant's petition for review because we......
-
Municipal Court of City of Phoenix In and For Maricopa County v. Waldron, 1
...him to confer in private with his attorney. (Emphasis added). 147 Ariz. at 456, 711 P.2d at 595. See also State v. City Court of Tucson, 150 Ariz. 379, 723 P.2d 728 (App.1986). The facts in the instant case are different from those in Holland. Here neither the defendant nor his attorney eve......