Case Name: Joe E. FIEGEL, Jr. v. CITY OF CABOT
Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1989-04-12
Citations: 27 Ark. App. 146
Docket Number: CA CR 88-238
Parties: Joe E. FIEGEL, Jr. v. CITY OF CABOT
Judges: Corbin, C.J., dissents.
Reporter: Arkansas Appellate Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 146–150

Head Matter:
Joe E. FIEGEL, Jr. v. CITY OF CABOT
CA CR 88-238
767 S.W.2d 539
Court of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc
Opinion delivered April 12, 1989
Russell L. “Jack” Roberts and “Buddy" Troxell, by: Russell L. “Jack” Roberts, for appellant.
Keith G. Rhodes, Cabot City Attorney, for appellee.

Opinion:
James R. Cooper, Judge.
The appellant in this criminal case was convicted in a non-jury trial of D WI, second offense. The only issue raised in the trial court was whether law enforcement personnel adequately assisted him to obtain additional blood alcohol testing as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-204(e)(2) (1987). The trial judge, sitting as the finder of fact, found that the City of Cabot acted reasonably under the circumstances and did assist the defendant in his attempts to obtain an additional test. The results of a breathalyzer test were thereafter admitted, and the appellant was found guilty of second offense DWI. From that decision, comes this appeal.
The only argument raised on appeal is that the trial judge erred in finding that the appellee adequately assisted him in obtaining an additional test, and therefore the breathalyzer test results were inadmissible. We affirm.
Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-65-204(e) provides that:
(e) The person tested may have a physician or a qualified technician, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his own choice administer a complete chemical test in addition to any test administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer.
(1) The law enforcement officer shall advise the person of this right.
(2) The refusal or failure of a law enforcement officer to advise such person of this right and to permit and assist the person to obtain such test shall preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer.
The test result may be admitted into evidence if there was substantial compliance with the statute, Hegler v. State, 286 Ark. 215, 691 S.W.2d 129 (1985), and the officer must provide only such assistance as is reasonable at the place and time. Williford v. State, 284 Ark. 449, 683 S.W.2d 228 (1985). Whether the assistance provided was reasonable under the circumstances is a fact question for the trial judge to decide. Girdner v. State, 285 Ark. 70, 684 S.W.2d 808 (1985).
The record shows that Robert Higgs, a police officer employed by the City of Cabot, stopped the appellant's vehicle at 3:31 a.m. on July 12,1987, after he saw the vehicle driven by the appellant cross into the oncoming traffic lane on Locust Street in Cabot. Officer Higgs informed the appellant of his rights with respect to additional testing, and a breathalyzer test was administered. The appellant then requested an additional test. Officer Higgs gave the appellant an opportunity to call a qualified person to come to the police station and draw blood for an additional test, and informed him that, as an alternative, he could have someone pick him up and take him to have a blood alcohol test performed elsewhere if he first posted bond. The appellant requested that Officer Higgs take him to a hospital for testing. Officer Higgs stated that he denied the request. He explained that, although there were normally two officers on duty at that time of night, the police department was temporarily short-handed and he was the only officer on duty: because the nearest facility able to administer an additional test at that time of night was located eight or nine miles away in Jacksonville, the City of Cabot would be without police protection had he transported the appellant for testing as requested. Higgs telephoned the Chief of Police for instructions, and he testified that the chief instructed him not to transport the appellant to the hospital in Jacksonville, and said that the appellant should instead call someone to come and take him for testing.
The record also shows that the trial court carefully analyzed the circumstances of the case and weighed the defendant's interests against those of the State in deciding that the assistance offered was reasonable. Focusing on the unique situation presented the trial court held that Officer Higgs' actions were reasonable because compliance with the appellant's request would have left the City of Cabot without any police protection for the period of time necessary to transport the appellant to Jacksonville for testing, to accomplish the testing, and then to transport him back to Cabot. The trial court's finding that the level of assistance offered to the appellant was reasonable under the circumstances was amply supported by the evidence, and we hold that the officer's actions constituted substantial compliance with Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-204(e)(2) (1987).
Affirmed.
Corbin, C.J., dissents.