Minnesota DUI Case: refusal suspension upheld
In a Minnesota DUI case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the implied consent license revocation of a person who did not provide an adequate breath sample. The officer deemed it a refusal when the Intoxilyzer timed out, and that was it.
The Cite: Londo v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, Decided December 9, 2008 (currently designated as unpublished).
The relevant facts from the opinion:
After four attempts to get appellant to blow into the Intoxilyzer, the device timed out without an adequate breath sample. Deputy Sturm, who was present during the Intoxilyzer test, informed appellant that because she did not blow into the machine, she was deemed to have refused the test. Appellant was then taken to booking. After a couple of minutes, Deputy Sturm initiated the revocation of appellant's driver's license and again told appellant that she was being deemed to have refused the breath test.
The holding that shows that in civil DUI license proceedings, there is a very low level of protection of drivers’ rights:
Appellant also argues that due process requires Deputy Sturm to have given her a chance to cure her refusal. In support of her assertion, appellant directs this court to State v. Netland, 742 N.W.2d 207 (Minn.App.2007), review granted (Minn. Feb. 27, 2008). In Netland, we held that in the criminal context, due process requires a testing officer to provide an alternative method of chemical testing where a driver is deemed to refuse a chemical test because of an inadequate breath sample but seeks additional time to provide an adequate sample and an alternate mode of chemical testing. Id. at 223.
The district court found Netland similarly unavailing to appellant's argument. We agree with the district court. Appellant's license revocation is a civil matter, whereas Netland was a criminal case. As we stated in Netland, "[t]he minimum level of fairness that our system of law requires to deprive a driver of driving privileges is not the same as that required to impose a criminal sanction." Id. at 219. We have previously held that "[i]n the civil implied-consent context, '[i]f a person fails to provide an adequate breath sample, the officer, absent a determination of physical inability, is not required to offer the driver an additional test.' " Id. (citing Smith v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 401 N.W.2d 414, 416 (Minn.App.1987), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 1987)). Therefore, Deputy Sturm was not required to provide appellant with an alternative test after appellant was deemed to have refused the breath test.
My rant… er, comments: From a defendant’s perspective, prepared to get *&$#@ed at the DMV. Because the civil standard provides so little Constitutional protection, as long as the administrative law judge crafts the findings of fact to support their conclusion, there is often little even a very skilled DUI lawyer can do to stave off the refusal suspension.
http://www.duilawblog.com/admin/trackback/100398
