Strand v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles
| Decision Date | 07 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1297--I,1297--I |
| Citation | 509 P.2d 999,8 Wn.App. 877 |
| Parties | Richard C. STRAND, Respondent, v. STATE of Washington, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen. of Washington, R. Timothy Oliver, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for appellant.
Kinzel, Acheson & Marshall, William L. Kinzel, Bellevue, for respondent.
Quaere: Must it be shown that a motor vehicle operator actually understood the consequences of a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test before his driving privileges can be revoked under RCW 46.20.308 for refusing the test?
We hold it need only be shown that he was informed of his right to refuse the test, that he was warned, however, that his privilege to drive would be revoked or denied if he refused to submit to the test, and of his right to have additional tests administered by a qualified person of his own choosing. RCW 46.20.308 and 46.61.506. A driver who is advised of his rights under the implied consent law but declines to take a breathalyzer test is deemed to have 'refused' the test so as to require revocation of his license unless he objectively and unequivocally manifested that he did not understand his rights and the warning concerning the consequences of refusal and was denied clarification. A lack of understanding not made apparent to the officer is of no consequence.
This action is an appeal by the Department of Motor Vehicles. The trial court is claimed to have erred in holding that:
1. The Department of Motor Vehicles failed to follow due process of law in revoking the operator's driving privileges under RCW 46.20.308 since it failed to establish that he understood the consequences of refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test, and
2. The operator's driving privileges should be reinstated.
On March 13, 1970, at approximately 10 p.m., an officer of the Washington State Patrol stopped the driver for erratic driving. The officer observed the driver's demeanor and performance on physical tests and then arrested him for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. At the King County jail, the officer informed him of his statutory rights and warned him of the consequences of refusing a chemical test of his breath. He asked the driver if he understood and received a reply in the affirmative. He asked him if he would take the breathalyzer test, and the driver replied, The state trooper twice advised him that the period of revocation would be 6 months if he refused to take the breathalyzer test, but the driver continued to refuse.
At the trial, the driver testified that he remembered most of the events of his arrest and later proceedings. He remembered the state patrol officer reading from a card about the breathalyzer but said he did not appreciate the consequences of his decision not to submit to the test. He said he first became aware that he would lose his license when he talked with his attorney later. The finding of the trial court that the driver did not understand, at the time, the consequences of his refusal is not challenged. The department challenges the inherent theory that a motor vehicle operator must understand, in his own mind, the legal consequences of his refusal to take the breathalyzer test before his driving privileges may be revoked for that refusal and that this must be proven by the department.
RCW 46.20.308(1) and 46.20.308(3) read in part:
(1) Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506, to a chemical test or tests of his breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if arrested for any offense where, at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The test or tests 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 upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Such officer shall inform the person of his right to refuse the test, and of his right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his choosing as provided in RCW 46.61.506. The officer shall warn the driver that his privilege to drive will be revoked or denied if he refuses to submit to the test. . . .
(3) If, following his arrest, the person arrested refuses upon the request of a law enforcement officer to submit to a chemical test of his breath, after being informed that his refusal will result in the revocation or denial of his privilege to drive, no test shall be given. The department of motor vehicles, upon the receipt of a sworn report of the law enforcement officer that he had reasonable grounds to believe the arrested person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and that the person had refused to submit to the test upon the request of the law enforcement officer after being informed that such refusal would result in the revocation or denial of his privilege to drive, shall revoke his license or permit to drive or any nonresident operating privilege.
In interpreting initiative measures, the main objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the people. Unlikely, strained, or absurd consequences are to be avoided, and the initiative should be given a reading which makes it purposeful and effective. State v. Felix, 78 Wash.2d 771, 479 P.2d 87 (1971); Fritts v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 6 Wash.App. 233, 492 P.2d 558 (1971).
The intent of this initiative is to place an operator, arrested for driving while intoxicated, in the position that his license will be revoked, if upon being informed under RCW 46.20.308 of his rights and the consequences of his refusal to take the breathalyzer, he withdraws his pre-imposed consent to the test by reneging on this acquiesence with which he is saddled by statute. State v. Richardson, 81 Wash.2d 111, 499 P.2d 1264 (1972).
Wash.2d 624, 496 P.2d 963 (1972), the court held that a driver's license may be suspended under RCW 46.20.308 where the driver is too intoxicated to understand the advice given him and to respond intelligently to it. The court noted at page 628, 496 P.2d at page 965:
We conclude that when the advice as to the consequences of a refusal is given in the form prescribed by the statute, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beck v. Cox
...refusing to submit to the test"; necessarily that judgment must be made under an objective standard, Strand v. State Department of Motor Vehicles, 8 Wash.App. 877, 509 P.2d 999, 1002 (1973). If there is doubt, it may be advisable for an officer to request a motorist to sign a document attes......
-
Spradling v. Deimeke
...must clarify the situation before a valid refusal to submit to the test can occur. The court quoting from Strand v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 8 Wash.App. 877, 509 P.2d 999 (1973), said at 520 P.2d at 'A driver who is advised of his rights under the implied consent law but declines to take a ......
-
Gonzales v. State Dept. of Licensing
...536 P.2d 172.38 Schoultz v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 89 Wash.2d 664, 669, 574 P.2d 1167 (1978); Strand v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 8 Wash.App. 877, 883, 509 P.2d 999 (1973).39 Schoultz, 89 Wash.2d at 669, 574 P.2d 1167; Strand, 8 Wash.App. at 883, 509 P.2d 999.40 Findings of Fact,......
-
Wolf v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles
...Unwillingness to cooperate in the administration of a Breathalyzer test is a refusal to take the test. Strand v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 8 Wash.App. 877, 509 P.2d 999 (1973). Whether the driver's conduct amounts to a refusal to take the test is a question of fact. The evidence here wa......