Legal Reference

Arizona's implied consent DUI law is constitutional

Arizona police can't say DUI tests are required, court rules

Arizona Supreme Court bars DUI blood tests without warrant

I think Jason Medar is right on this, and that you can have your driver's license revoked for up to a year if you refuse to take a DUI test.

That's based on the second article where it says this:

The ruling provided guidance, saying officers should ask suspects to consent to alcohol tests and then tell those refusing that they face non-criminal consequences such as loss of their driver's license for a year or longer.
But both articles do say that the police can't legally force you to take a DUI test, unless they get a search warrant.

And from what I understand it's trivial for a cop to get a search warrant to draw your blood.

I suspect all they have to says is:

The guy looks drunker then a skunk
and a crooked judge will rubber stamp the cops request for a search warrant.

I was under the wrong impression that the government can't punish you for exercising your Constitutional rights.

And in this case that would be suspending your license for exercising you Constitutional right to refuse a DUI test.

I was wrong on that, and in this case it looks like the government CAN punish you for exercising your Constitutional rights.

And it looks like Jason Medar is right. If you exercise your Constitutional right to refuse a DUI test, the heavy handed royal rulers in Arizona will revoke your driver's license for a year.

And it looks like Jason Medar is right. If you exercise your Constitutional right to refuse a DUI test, the heavy handed royal rulers in Arizona will revoke your driver's license for a year.


Arizona Supreme Court bars DUI blood tests without warrant

HOWARD FISCHER Capitol Media Services May 31, 2013

PHOENIX -- Police cannot use the state's traffic laws to draw blood from suspected drunk drivers without a warrant absent their specific permission at the time of the test, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a unanimous decision, the justices rejected the contention by the Pima County Attorney's Office that all Arizona motorists give "implied consent" to having blood, breath or urine tests as a condition to be licensed to drive. They said that means, absent a clear -- and voluntary -- consent immediately prior to the blood draw, it is an illegal search without a warrant.

In a wide-ranging ruling, the high court also said that the ability of juveniles to give that voluntary consent is not absolute -- and not the same as an adult. Justice Scott Bales, writing for the court, said a trial judge must consider all the factors, including the age of the suspect and the failure to notify parents.

But the justices refused to rule that the absence of a juvenile's parents automatically means any consent is not voluntary.

Thursday's ruling most immediately means that charges of driving under the influence of drugs will be dropped against the youth, identified in court records only as Tyler B. because he was 16 at the time of the arrest.

But he is not out of the legal woods yet. Deputy County Attorney Nicolette Kneut said Tyler, who has since turned 18, still faces charges of possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia in justice court as an adult.

Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall said Thursday's ruling will complicate the job that police statewide are required to do. She said the high court has provided no guidance.

"How is the officer supposed to know whether or not it's been an express consent," she said. "It just makes it really, really tough because there isn't any bright line."

LaWall said the ruling means that her office will advise police to get a court-ordered warrant whenever possible before drawing blood, even when a motorist -- and now, especially a juvenile -- gives approval for a blood draw. That, she said, eliminates any possibility of having that consent later ruled involuntary.

According to court records, Tyler and two friends arrived late to school. A school monitor smelled marijuana on the boys and also saw drug paraphernalia in Tyler's car.

The boys were detained in separate rooms while sheriff's deputies were contacted.

A deputy read Tyler his Miranda warnings against self-incrimination and the right to an attorney. But the court files said that Tyler, in the presence of several school officials, admitted he had driven his car to school after smoking marijuana and that he owned some of the paraphernalia in the car.

When the deputy placed Tyler under arrested, the youth became agitated and was placed in handcuffs while the deputy retrieved a blood-draw kit from his car.

On returning, he saw Tyler had calmed down and he removed the cuffs. He then read Tyler from the law which says that Arizona motorists must consent to blood or other tests and that refusal will result in automatic suspension of driving privileges.

Tyler agreed verbally and in writing to the blood draw. But when the case went to court, Tyler argued his consent was not voluntary and that, as a minor, he lacked capacity to consent.

When the court commissioner agreed and suppressed the evidence, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Bales said the issue has never been decided in Arizona.

Bales rejected arguments by prosecutors that "implied consent" law means there is no need to determine whether a consent at the time of the blood draw is voluntary.

"A compelled blood draw, even when administered pursuant to (the implied consent law) is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment's constraints," he wrote for the court. "Such an invasion of bodily integrity implicates an individual's most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy."

He said the law says only that an officer must ask a suspect to submit to the test -- and that if a person refuses, a warrant is needed and the suspect's licenses is suspended.

Bales said a motorist can allow a warrantless search "provided the consent is voluntary." But that, he said has to be decided by a court based on all the circumstances, including the suspect's age -- and even whether a parent is present.

In this case, Bales wrote, the court commissioner was correct in ruling that, based on the evidence she had, Tyler's consent was not voluntary.

He said Tyler was detained for about two hours in a room in the presence of school officials and a deputy, without his parents.

"Tyler initially was shaking and visibly nervous," Bales wrote, and placed in handcuffs until he calmed down. And he said that the law read to him about "implied consent" ended with the statement, "You are, therefore, required to submit to the specified tests."

It was only then, Bales said, Tyler consented to the blood draw.

Thursday's ruling drew a special comment from Justice John Pelander. He said his own review of the evidence leads him to believe Tyler did voluntarily consent.

But Pelander said Arizona law requires he and the other justices not to reweigh the evidence but only to consider whether the court commissioner abused her discretion in suppressing the evidence.

Sadly most cops are pathological liars and will say anything to flush your Constitutional rights down the toilet and get a conviction.

My self I always take the 5th when stopped by the cops. And in almost every case the police are pathological liars who tell me that I don't and 5th Amendment rights in "this case". That's despite the fact that Miranda v Arizona says when a person takes the 5th, the police shall immediately cease questioning the person.

The cops also behave like Mafia thugs in my case and always say that if don't allow them to flush my Constitutional rights down the toilet, bad, bad, bad things will happen to me.

I am surprised because yesterday I posted the article saying the Arizona Supreme Court was going to rule on this, and in today's newspaper they had the ruling.

Arizona police can't say DUI tests are required, court rules


Arizona police can't say DUI tests are required, court rules

Associated Press 8:01 a.m. MST April 27, 2016

Police in Arizona can't flatly tell drunken-driving suspects that state law requires them to submit to alcohol testing, the Arizona Supreme Court said Tuesday in a ruling that acknowledges that a state-provided form and earlier rulings by courts indicated otherwise.

Because suspects actually can refuse to submit to alcohol testing if police haven't obtained a warrant from a judge, it violates the suspects' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable warrantless searches to tell them they must consent, the court's ruling said.

That's because the suspects would believe they must comply, Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer wrote for the court. "Our society expects, and unquestionably demands, that people follow directives issued by law enforcement officials."

The ruling provided guidance, saying officers should ask suspects to consent to alcohol tests and then tell those refusing that they face non-criminal consequences such as loss of their driver's license for a year or longer.

While the justices said a man arrested in a Cochise County DUI case was wrongly told he had to submit to tests, the ruling nevertheless upheld his convictions and sentence.

The ruling said that's because the state trooper who arrested the man acted in good faith based on what was understood to be the law based on decades-old court rulings and on a state-provided form used by police.

While part of the form says a person's driving privileges will be suspended for varying periods of time if the person doesn't submit to testing or complete it, the ruling noted that the form states several times that people are required to submit and complete the testing.

Justices rule on boating case

Three justices two current ones and one retired justice joined in Timmer's opinion. A fifth justice agreed with parts of the majority opinion but dissented on other parts.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday also issued a ruling on a similar testing-consent issue in a Maricopa County case involving a man convicted of operating a boat while under the influence of alcohol.

While the ruling in the boating case reiterated the court's overall finding from the other case, it overturned the boater's convictions because prosecutors early in the case didn't raise the issue of whether the arresting officer was acting in good faith. The boater's case now returns to a trial court for further consideration.

Trial judges in both cases had rejected defense requests to block use of alcohol test results on grounds that they were coerced. Courts that reviewed initial appeals in both cases upheld the convictions.



My Legal Reference Web Site