Case Title: State v. Berg

Citation: 259 P.2d 261, 76 Ariz. 96

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1953-07-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
76 Ariz. 96 (1953) 259 P.2d 261 STATE v. BERG. No. 1038. Supreme Court of Arizona. July 18, 1953. *97 Wm. P. Mahoney, Jr., County Atty., and Charles L. Hardy, Deputy Co. Atty., Phoenix, for the State. Paul H. Primock and Newman W. White, Phoenix, for defendant. PHELPS, Justice. The trial court, under the provisions of section 44-2401, A.C.A. 1939, has certified to us four questions of law arising in the above entitled criminal case with a request that we render an advisory opinion thereon. The precise questions are hereinafter set forth haec verba. In substance they all raise the question as to whether the results of a drunkometer test are admissible in evidence where the evidence discloses the specimen of breath was forcibly taken from the *98 defendant over his objection. It is asked if such acts violate the defendant's Federal and state constitutional rights. Counsel have stipulated to the purported facts which are in substance that defendant was arrested in February 1953 by police officers while he was driving an automobile within the city of Phoenix and that a drunkometer test of a specimen of his breath made soon thereafter disclosed a blood alcohol concentration of.249% by weight. The facts as stipulated do not disclose upon what grounds the arrest was made but the only inference to be drawn therefrom is that the police officers making the arrest had reason to believe that defendant was then and there operating an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. In any event a direct information was promptly filed in the superior court of Maricopa County charging defendant in two counts with operating an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and with reckless driving alleging a former conviction in each count. It is stipulated that the drunkometer test is the only evidence of intoxication. It is further stipulated that defendant refused to submit to a drunkometer test which we presume means to state that he refused to permit a specimen of his breath to be taken and was compelled to submit thereto by force. The stipulation contains the statement that certain police officers who, if called as witnesses, would testify that in order to procure the breath specimen of defendant it was necessary that he be forcibly placed in restraining straps and that his head be forcibly held during the taking of the breath specimen. No further details are included in the agreed stipulation of facts. It will be seen from the above that the stipulated facts are most incomplete and unsatisfactory in that it cannot be determined therefrom if the breath was forced from the lungs by the officers in some brutal manner or if it was forced to be retained in the lungs and permitted to escape only through some device clamped over the mouth and nostrils of the defendant or in some other unlawful or inhuman manner by the use of force. We will dispose of the questions in the order of their presentation. 1. Is the result of a drunkometer test admissible in evidence where the testimony or evidence discloses that said specimen of breath of defendant analyzed in such test was forcibly taken from said defendant and over the objections of said defendant? The answer is yes, if the force is used in capturing the exhaled breath after it passes the lips or nose of defendant. This question involves a rule of evidence. We are committed to the following rule under our decision in the case of State v. Frye, 58 Ariz. 409, 120 P.2d 793, 797. The court said: To the same effect is State v. Pelosi, 68 Ariz. 51, 199 P.2d 125. In People v. DeFore, 242 N.Y. 13, 150 N.E. 585, Judge Cardozo, author of the opinion stated that thirty-one of the states of the Union adhere to this rule. The reason assigned for the rule is that courts will not hear evidence on collateral issues in the trial of criminal cases. Further citations are unnecessary. 2. Does the forcible taking of a breath specimen from a defendant for the purpose of a drunkometer test, violate article 2, section 10 of the constitution of Arizona? The answer is no. Section 10, supra, provides that: The above provision of our constitution is in substance the same as one of the immunities guaranteed under the provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Every state in the Union has similar provisions with the exception of Iowa and New Jersey. Although slightly different in the language employed the courts uniformly hold that their meaning and purpose are the same. While there is a divergence of authority on the scope of evidence intended to be embraced in this constitutional immunity the better rule, we believe, is that it is limited primarily to testimonial compulsion, i.e., "to extract from the person's own lips an admission of his guilt." 8 Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., sections 2252, 2263, enunciate the history of the rule and the rule itself in section 2263 as follows: Section 2264 thereof makes a broader application of the rule to include documents or chattels produced in court by legal process: Justice Bailey in the case of State v. Cram, 176 Or. 577, 160 P.2d 283, 164 A.L.R. 952, says that this extension of the rule to documents and chattels is conceded by practically all the authorities to be correct. In Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 31 S. Ct. 2, 6, 54 L. Ed. 1021, in which the defendant was charged with murder and the question arose as to whether a blouse belonged to the prisoner, a witness was permitted to testify that the prisoner put it on and it fit him. Justice Holmes in writing the opinion referred to the objection to this evidence as an extravagant extension of the Fifth Amendment. It was charged there that the defendant put the blouse on under duress. Justice Holmes said, in upholding the court in admitting the evidence: This is quoted with approval in the case of Commonwealth v. Musto, 348 Pa. 300, 35 A.2d 307. See also State v. Gatton, 60 Ohio App. 192, 20 N.E.2d 265; Ridgell v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 54 A.2d 679; State v. Smith, Del.Super., 91 A.2d 188; Block v. People, 125 Colo. 36, 240 P.2d 512; Lee v. State, 27 Ariz. 52, 229 P. 939, 942. It was claimed in the Lee case, supra, that the defendant was compelled to give evidence against himself. The officers removed his shoes from his feet for the purpose of comparing them with tracks leading from the scene of the shooting to the place where the defendant was found. It was contended that this violated article 2, section 10, of our constitution. The court said: To the same effect is State v. Cram, supra. 3. Does the forcible taking of a breath specimen from a defendant for the purpose of a drunkometer test, violate article 2, section 8 of the constitution of the state of Arizona? The answer is no. This section provides that: We are somewhat at a loss to understand in what particular defendant claims that his right under the provisions of the above section of the state constitution (commonly known as the "search and seizure" provision) have been violated. There is no claim that defendant's home was unlawfully invaded. Hence if this provision of the constitution has been violated it must be by reason of some disturbance of the defendant in his private affairs without authority of law. He was not forced to exhale breath from his lungs. He exhaled it voluntarily and in fact of necessity in order to survive. The moment his breath passed his lips it was no longer his to control but became a part of the surrounding atmosphere which was equally free for use by anyone present within the orbit of its immediate circulation. Officers making the arrest had the lawful right to capture his breath after it left his body for use as evidence in procuring his conviction of drunk driving if in the process of doing so they made no invasion of his person. So long as they limited their operation to the capture of his breath after it left his body by means, which only slightly interfered temporarily with his freedom of action he had no legal right to obstruct their efforts. If he did obstruct them they had the right to use such force upon defendant as appeared to be reasonably necessary to overcome such interference. Such a process, if not resisted by defendant, involves less restraint upon his person than finger-printing him. Judge Hand said in the case of United States v. Kelly, 55 F.2d 67, 68, 83 A.L.R. 122, with respect to the right to fingerprint a person arrested, whether convicted at the time or not: With a rapidly increasing death toll upon the public highways of the nation, much of which may be attributed to drunk driving, we believe the slight inconvenience to a defendant arrested for drunk driving in requiring him to exhale his breath in the direction of a rubber suction tube which in nowise contacts his body or contributes to his discomfort, is a burden which such defendant must bear for the common interest. In United States v. Mills, C.C., 185 F. 318, 319, the court said: We can see no legal difference in the right to a specimen of defendant's breath to be used as evidence in cases of drunk driving where the body of the person is neither invaded nor assaulted and the right to search his person and premises and seizing such physical evidence as deemed necessary to procure a conviction of the crime for which he was arrested. We have read the case of Rochin v. People of the State of California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183, cited by defendant and find no similarity whatever in that case to the case at bar. There an emetic solution was forced through a tube into the stomach of defendant producing vomiting and in the vomited matter two capsules of morphine were found and used at the trial. The conviction in that case was reversed on the ground that it violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Neither is there any similarity in the instant case with cases cited relating to the taking of blood tests of a defendant which is accomplished by withdrawing blood from the veins of the body through the medium of a needle constructed for that purpose. And there is but slight similarity in the instant case to cases cited by defendant where urinalysis was made and used as evidence against the defendant. Many courts have held that both blood and urine obtained by force or otherwise is admissible against the defendant and does not *104 violate the constitutional provision guaranteeing immunity from self-incrimination. We express no opinion on these questions as they are in nowise involved in this case and the cases cited are not in point. 4. Does the forcible taking of a breath specimen from a defendant, for the purpose of a drunkometer test, violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the constitution of the United States? The answer is no. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the constitution of the United States have no application whatever to the trial of cases in the state courts. They apply only to trials in Federal courts. Counsel for defendant have quoted the 14th Amendment to the constitution of the United States in their original brief. Just why is not clear. No reference is made to it in the arguments in their brief and no question is certified to us based upon its provision. The 14th Amendment is a restriction upon the employment of methods in state courts which violate the due process clause of that amendment but the Supreme Court of the United States in Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S. Ct. 14, 53 L. Ed. 97, and Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 152, 82 L. Ed. 288, holds that immunity from compulsory self-incrimination is not of the essence of a scheme of ordered liberty like freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion and therefore does not fall within the prohibition of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment; that immunity from being a witness against one's self falls rather in the category with other guarantees of the Fifth Amendment such as a right to trial by jury and immunity from prosecution except as the result of an indictment by grand jury, both of which have been abolished in several states. Prosecutions in this state are practically all by information. Justice Cardozo said in the Palko case, supra, to abolish trial by jury and the requirement that no prosecution shall be had except upon indictment by grand jury Therefore: In summary, the answer to question No. 1 is, yes, if the force is used in capturing his breath after it passes the lips or nostrils of defendant; and to questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 the answer is no. STANFORD, C.J., and LA PRADE, UDALL and WINDES, JJ., concur.