Case Title: State v. Garvey

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                   No. 90-166


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Caledonia Superior Court

Thomas Garvey                                December Term, 1990


Alan W. Cheever, J.

Robert M. Butterfield, Caledonia County Deputy State's Attorney,
  St. Johnsbury, for plaintiff-appellee

Rubin, Rona, Kidney & Myer, Barre, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     MORSE, J.   The sole issue in this appeal is whether a DUI suspect's
license may be suspended for refusing to submit to a blood alcohol test when
no public defender can reasonably be reached before the suspect is required
to decide whether to take the test.  The superior court ruled that
defendant's refusal, rendered without consulting an attorney, warranted the
license suspension sanction.  We disagree and reverse.
     Just after midnight on July 23, 1989, defendant was processed for DUI
at the Hardwick Police Department.  As part of the process, defendant was
advised:
         You have the right to talk with a lawyer before deciding
         whether or not to submit to a test.  If you cannot
         afford a lawyer and want one, a Public Defender will be
         contacted for you, at the State's expense.

         You have a reasonable amount of time in which to decide
         whether or not to submit to a test.  If you want to talk
         to a lawyer first, you must decide no later than 30
         minutes from the first attempt to contact a lawyer.

     Defendant told the officer he wanted to talk to a lawyer before
deciding whether to take a test to determine his blood alcohol level.  The
officer called fourteen lawyers, all of whom did not answer.  Defendant even
tried to reach a Connecticut lawyer, to no avail.  Forty-three minutes after
the officer first discussed taking the test, he made a last request that
defendant take the test.  After defendant again said he would not do so
without speaking to a lawyer first, the officer deemed that defendant had
refused.
     The trial court concluded the officer had reasonable grounds to request
the test and that defendant had refused the test.  Therefore, the sanction
provided by statute was triggered.  23 V.S.A. { 1205(a) (six-month
suspension of operator's license).
     The issue raised here was the subject of a dissent in Gilman v.
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, ___ Vt. ___, ___, 583 A.2d 86, 87-88 (1990)
(Dooley, J., dissenting) (decided on narrower grounds).  Based in part on
the statutory analysis in that dissent, we conclude that defendant's license
may not be suspended where a refusal is premised on the state's inability to
provide him with a consultation with a lawyer before he was required to make
up his mind whether to take the test.
     The Legislature gave a motorist in defendant's position "the right to
consult an attorney prior to deciding whether or not to submit to such a
test."  23 V.S.A. { 1202(c).  The State argues that this right is circum-
scribed by a condition that the decision be made "no later than thirty
minutes from the time of the initial attempt to contact the attorney."  Id.
The State's position necessarily means that the Legislature intended that
the right to counsel evaporates when one cannot be contacted within thirty
minutes.  To the contrary, we believe the Legislature intended that in any
event legal consultation be available through the public defender law.
     We held in State v. Nicasio, 136 Vt. 162, 165-66,