Source: https://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=416030c7-bf71-438e-bce0-739a5dfa1350
Timestamp: 2017-12-13 14:06:38
Document Index: 126214282

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 1', '§ 7', 'art. 1', '§ 3', 'art. 1', '§ 3']

Motion to Suppress Blood Test as Unauthorized by Statute | State v. Jones | Jon Fox - JDSupra
Motion to Suppress Blood Test as Unauthorized by Statute
Specific to Washington State law. The trooper had the defendant under arrest and asked him to blow into the breath test machine (Datamaster.) The defendant did so but the machine showed an error entitled "invalid sample." The trooper then told the defendant that he had to submit to a blood test. This brief argues that the trooper had no authority to request a blood test under these facts.
DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND ORDERS THEREON -1 FOX BOWMAN & DUARTE Attorneys at Law 1621 114th Ave. S.E. Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98008 (425) 451-3512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 IN THE KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, SOUTH DIVISION BURIEN COURTHOUSE, STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, vs. ______, Defendant. NO. DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND ORDERS THEREON NOTE FOR MOTION HEARING 1. Motions to Suppress Evidence1 To suppress evidence based on a violation of RCW 46.64.015, RCW 46.61.021 and Art. 1, § 7 of the Washington State Constitution in that there was a lack of lawful authority to stop, detain, or arrest the defendant herein. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); State v. Thornton, 41 Wn.App. 506 (1985); State v. Michaels, 60 Wn.2d 638 (1962); CrRLJ 3.6. Factual Declaration: The factual assertions below were taken from the sworn narratives of Trooper Cadet Armstrong and Trooper Triplett. These sworn narratives were provided to the defense in discovery. Those declarations, from Cadet Trooper Armstrong and Trooper Triplett establish the following basic facts: On November 17, 2007, Trooper Cadet Armstrong was working alone at the Fauntleroy ferry directing traffic. At that time he heard what sounded like a collision and eventually he DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND ORDERS THEREON -2 FOX BOWMAN & DUARTE Attorneys at Law 1621 114th Ave. S.E. Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98008 (425) 451-3512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 approached two vehicles that were involved in a collision. Cadet Armstrong detained the defendant under authority of law and called Washington state patrol dispatch requesting that a trooper arrive on the scene. Cadet Armstrong’s declaration is attached hereto. Eventually, Trooper Triplett arrived. Trooper Triplett arrested Mr. ______ on suspicion of DUI and requested that he submit to a breath test. The substance of Trooper Triplett’s sworn statement relating to the administration of the breath test is as follows: As the trooper’s affidavit reveals, there were two accepted breath samples, but not on the same breath test sequence. Also, there were invalid samples and an incomplete sample was given. At one point it appeared to the trooper that the defendant had his tongue over the mouthpiece, blocking the air. Despite the fact that Mr. ______ had shown himself to be capable of providing adequate breath samples, Trooper Triplett decided that Mr. ______ was . DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND ORDERS THEREON -3 FOX BOWMAN & DUARTE Attorneys at Law 1621 114th Ave. S.E. Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98008 (425) 451-3512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 “incapable” of providing breath samples and invoked the Implied Consent law, requesting that Mr. ______ provide a blood sample. Mr. ______ was transported to the hospital and a blood sample was taken. Mr. ______ now moves to suppress all evidence herein as the product of an illegal detention and further moves to suppress the blood test on grounds that taking blood was not authorized under RCW 46.20.308. Summary of Arguments: A. UNLAWFUL DETENTION/ARREST Evidence obtained as the result of an unlawful arrest must be excluded. State v. Kennedy, 8 Wash.App. 633, 636, 508 P.2d 1386 (1973). See Also Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85, 83 S.Ct. 407, 415-16, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); State v. Mathe, 102 Wash.2d 537, 544-45, 688 P.2d 859 (1984); State v. Bonds, 98 Wash.2d at 24, 653 P.2d 1024 (Utter, J., dissenting); State v. White, 97 Wash.2d 92, 104, 640 P.2d 1061 (1982). Where an officer has no jurisdiction to stop an individual for a presumed violation of the traffic code, the subsequent arrest is presumptively unlawful. “The concept of reasonableness embodied in the Fourth Amendment, and article 1, section 7 of the Washington Constitution presupposes an exercise of lawful authority by a police officer. When a law enforcement official acts beyond his or her jurisdiction, the resulting deprivation of liberty is just as unreasonable as an arrest without probable cause. See United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595, 68 S.Ct. 222, 228-29, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948). See Also, State v. Bonds, 98 Wash.2d 1, 8, 653 P.2d 1024 (1982), cert. DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND ORDERS THEREON -4 FOX BOWMAN & DUARTE Attorneys at Law 1621 114th Ave. S.E. Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98008 (425) 451-3512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 denied, 464 U.S. 831, 104 S.Ct. 111, 78 L.Ed.2d 112 (1983).” City of Wenatchee v. Durham, 43 Wash.App. 547, 550, 718 P.2d 819, 821 (1986). It is axiomatic that the State always has the burden of proving a lawful arrest, once the authority to arrest is challenged. In this case the detention of the defendant by a Trooper Cadet was unlawful and the fruits of that arrest must be suppressed. B. SUPPRESSION OF BLOOD TEST: Washington law is clear that tests to determine an individual’s alcohol content pursuant to RCW 46.20.308 must be by breath only except in very explicit circumstances.2 The request for blood in this case was premised on the trooper’s determination that Mr. ______ was “physically incapable” of providing a breath sample. This conclusion, however, is contradicted by Trooper Triplett’s own affidavit that reported Mr. ______ as giving (and therefore not “incapable” of giving) adequate breath samples into the machine. At one point the trooper indicates that Mr. ______’s tongue was covering the mouthpiece. This action could constitute a refusal to submit to a breath test but it would not be evidence that Mr. ______ was incapable of blowing. WAC 448-16-040 provides as follows: Foreign substances, interference, and invalid samples. (1) A determination as to whether a subject has a foreign substance in his or her mouth shall be made by either an examination of the mouth or a denial by the person that he or she has any foreign substances in their mouth. A test mouthpiece is not considered a foreign 2 RCW 46.20.308(3) states: “except as provided in this section, the test administered shall be of the breath only.” (2) reads in part: “…in those instances where the person is incapable due to physical injury, physical incapacity, or other physical limitation, of providing a breath sample…a blood test shall be administered by a qualified person as provided in RCW 46.61.506(5)…” DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND ORDERS THEREON -5 FOX BOWMAN & DUARTE Attorneys at Law 1621 114th Ave. S.E. Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98008 (425) 451-3512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 substance for purposes of RCW 46.61.506. (2) If a subject is wearing jewelry or ornamentation pierced through their tongue, lips, cheek, or other soft tissues in the oral cavity, they will be required to remove this prior to conducting the breath test. If the subject declines to remove the jewelry or ornamentation, they will be deemed to have a physical limitation rendering them incapable of providing a valid breath sample and will be required to provide a blood sample under the implied consent statute, RCW 46.20.308. (3) If during a breath test, interference is detected, this will invalidate the test. The subject will be required to repeat the test. A subject whose breath registers the presence of interference on two or more successive breaths shall be deemed to have a physical limitation rendering them incapable of providing a valid breath sample and will be required to provide a blood sample under the implied consent statute, RCW 46.20.308. (4) In the event that the instrument records an "invalid sample" result at any point during the subject's test, that subject's test should be readministered, after again determining that the subject has no foreign substance in their mouth as outlined in WAC 448-16-040(1), and repeating the fifteen minute observation period. The only scenario in the Washington Administrative Code that would have justified the conclusion that Mr. ______ was incapable of providing a breath sample is in subsection (3) referring to “interference.” This is not the scenario presented in the case at bar. The trooper had the choice of either continuing the breath test process or determining that by conduct, Mr. ______ was refusing to submit to a breath test. An individual may be deemed to have refused the breath test where by his words or actions he indicates an unwillingness to cooperate in the test procedure. Woolman vs. Department of Motor Vehicles, 15 Wash.App. 115, 547 P.2d 293 (1976). This scenario at bar, however, did not authorize the request to take blood in lieu of a breath test. In City of Kent vs. Beigh, 145 Wn.2d 33, 32 P.2d 258 (2001), the Washington Supreme Court addressed the circumstances under which an officer may request a blood test pursuant to RCW 46.20.308. There, the parties agreed that Mr. Beigh had no physical defect DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND ORDERS THEREON -6 FOX BOWMAN & DUARTE Attorneys at Law 1621 114th Ave. S.E. Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98008 (425) 451-3512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 to his respiratory system, but the breath testing machine registered “interferent detected” upon several breath attempts. The Court held that the officer had no authority to require or permit an evidentiary blood test in lieu of the breath test.3 In other words, the fact that the breath test machine registered “interferent detected” did not render Mr. Beigh physically incapable of providing a breath sample. The Washington Administrative Code was amended after the Beigh decision and although it now specifically states that repeated “interferent detected” samples deem the subject to be incapable of providing a breath sample, there was no amendment of the WAC to permit this finding if there is an invalid sample. Instead, the WAC requires the taking of another breath sample. (WAC 448-16-040(4) infra.) When a statute specifically designates the things or classes of things upon which it operates, an inference arises that the legislating body intended all omissions. In re Pers. Restraint of Hopkins, 137 Wn.2d 897, 901, 976 P.2d 616 (1999). It must therefore be presumed that the invalid sample scenario was intentionally excluded from the list of scenarios in breath testing that the WAC considers to deem a subject incapable of providing a breath sample. The analysis of the court in the case of Rockwell vs. Department of Licensing, 94 Wash.App. 531, 972 P.2d 1276 (1999) is helpful to this analysis. There, the Court of Appeals upheld the Grant County Superior Court’s determination that Mr. Rockwell was unwilling to provide the requisite breath sample despite his assertions of physical incapacity. There Mr. Rockwell verbally agreed to submit to the breath test, however according to the police officer he did not blow properly and was ultimately processed as a refusal. Mr. Rockwell argued that medical conditions, including low lung capacity caused by emphysema, rendered him 3 This should be distinguished from the circumstance where an individual requests an additional blood test to be used as exculpatory evidence, which is not performed in lieu of the evidentiary breath/blood test. DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND ORDERS THEREON -7 FOX BOWMAN & DUARTE Attorneys at Law 1621 114th Ave. S.E. Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98008 (425) 451-3512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 unable to comply with the test. The Superior Court determined that Mr. Rockwell failed to establish that any medical condition existing at the time of the test prevented him from producing breath samples, and found it particularly persuasive that one of his breath samples was in fact accepted by the machine. It upheld the finding that Mr. Rockwell had refused to submit to a breath test. The Court did not find him to have a physical limitation rendering him incapable of providing a breath test in part because he was able to provide a breath sample that was accepted. In the case at bar Mr. ______ provided two samples that were accepted by the machine during the course of the entire testing process. Because the facts in this case do not support the application of an exception to the administration of a breath test to Mr. ______, the blood test was not authorized under RCW 46.20.308 and should be suppressed. 2. Defendant's Statements To suppress all statements attributed to the defendant at the time of arrest. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981); State v. Johnson, 48 Wn.App. 681 (1987), and for a pretrial hearing pursuant to CrRLJ 3.5. Motion is: granted denied reserved DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND ORDERS THEREON -8 FOX BOWMAN & DUARTE Attorneys at Law 1621 114th Ave. S.E. Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98008 (425) 451-3512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 II. DISCOVERY MOTIONS 1. Widmark's Formula To compel disclosure of whether or not the prosecution intends to offer testimony regarding "retrograde extrapolation," or "Widmark's Formula," and, if so, to compel disclosure of the name(s) of the expert witness(es), his/her credentials, qualifications, education, training and experience, and disclosure of any documents, studies, reports, or other materials relied on or material to any aspect of such testimony, and for a summary of their testimony. RCW 46.61.506, CrRLJ 4.7(d). Motion is: granted denied reserved 2. Identity of Experts To compel disclosure of the identity of the specific breath test technician, simulator solution changer, and state toxicology lab technician the prosecution intends to call at trial, the subject of their testimony, the basis of their expertise, including qualification, education, training and experience, and disclosure of any reports, documents, or studies upon which they intend to rely or make reference to in any aspect of their testimony. CrRLJ 4.7. Motion is: granted denied reserved 3. Expert -Blood Test For discovery of the identity of any state expert witness concerning evidence of the defendant’s alleged breath concerning evidence of the defendant’s alleged breath or blood alcohol concentration. U.S. Constitution, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, Washington Constitution, art. 1 § 3. State v. Dunnivan, 65 Wn.App. 728 (1992), CrRLJ 4.7. Motion is: granted denied reserved 4. Expert -Physiological Effects For discovery of the identity of any state expert witness concerning evidence of the physiological effects of alcohol or any drug on the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle. U.S. Constitution, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; Washington Constitution, art. 1 § 3, State v. Dunnivan, 65 Wn.App. 728 (1992), CrRLJ 4.7. Motion is: granted denied reserved DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND ORDERS THEREON -9 FOX BOWMAN & DUARTE Attorneys at Law 1621 114th Ave. S.E. Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98008 (425) 451-3512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS: Jon Scott Fox declares as follows: I am counsel for the defendant herein. The factual allegations made herein in support of the defendant's motions are based upon counsel's investigation and information and belief based upon information received by me from the defendant and upon information provided by the prosecution herein. I believe that there is a factual basis for the motions herein, that they are made in good faith, and that an evidentiary hearing regarding the motions is merited. I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. (RCW 9A.72.085) Presented by: JON SCOTT FOX Attorney for Defendant WSBA# 14785 DISCOVERY ORDER -1 FOX BOWMAN & DUARTE Attorneys at Law 1621 114th Ave. S.E. Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98008 (425) 451-3512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 IN THE KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT EAST DIVISION, STATE OF WASHINGTON , Plaintiff, vs. , Defendant. NO. DISCOVERY ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the prosecution shall comply with all granted discovery motions no later than 4 p.m. on the _________ day of ________________, 2008. DONE IN OPEN COURT this ______ day of _____, 2008. JUDGE
Reference Info: Legal Memoranda: Pre-Trial Motions | State, 9th Circuit, Washington | United States
© Jon Fox, Fox Bowman Duarte | Attorney Advertising
Fox Bowman Duarte on: