Case Name: GARY D. ETHERIDGE Petitioner v. ELBERT L. PETERS, JR., Commissioner, Division of Motor Vehicles, Respondent
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1980-03-04
Citations: 45 N.C. App. 358
Docket Number: No. 793SC580
Parties: GARY D. ETHERIDGE Petitioner v. ELBERT L. PETERS, JR., Commissioner, Division of Motor Vehicles, Respondent
Judges: Judge CLARK concurs.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 358–367

Head Matter:
GARY D. ETHERIDGE Petitioner v. ELBERT L. PETERS, JR., Commissioner, Division of Motor Vehicles, Respondent
No. 793SC580
(Filed 4 March 1980)
1. Automobiles § 126.3— breathalyzer test — thirty minute time limit
The thirty minute time limit for submitting to a breathalyzer test referred to in G.S. 2046.2(a)(4) is absolute, and a person accused of driving under the influence has no right to delay the test in excess of thirty minutes while waiting for his attorney to arrive or to return his call.
2. Automobiles § 126.3— breathalyzer test — no constitutional right to consult attorney or refuse test
A person enjoys no constitutional right to confer with counsel before deciding whether to submit to a breathalyzer test, and the State is not constitutionally required to give an accused an option to refuse the test.
3. Automobiles § 126.3— willful refusal to take breathalyzer test —elapse of time while awaiting attorney
Petitioner willfully refused to submit to a breathalyzer test where the court found that petitioner was advised of his rights under G.S. 2046.2(a); petitioner indicated to the breathalyzer operator that he would like to contact an attorney or have an attorney present during the test; petitioner called an attorney’s home and left a message for the attorney to come to the breathalyzer room; the breathalyzer operator offered the test to defendant at the end of a twenty minute waiting period and again at the end of the thirty minute waiting period; petitioner’s attorney arrived within two to four minutes after the thirty minute period expired; and petitioner, upon the advice of his attorney, indicated a willingness to take the test approximately five minutes after the thirty minute period expired, but the operator refused to administer the test at that time.
Judge Clark concurring.
Judge Vaughn dissenting.
APPEAL by respondent from Rouse, Judge. Judgment entered 4 April 1979 in Superior Court, CRAVEN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 17 January 1980.
On 18 March 1978 petitioner was driving his automobile near Carolina Pines on U.S. 70 in Craven County when he was stopped and arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating beverage. He was taken by Trooper Larry DuBose to the Craven County Sheriff’s Department and requested by Trooper DuBose to submit to a chemical test of breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood. Trooper Johnny Brown, a duly licensed breathalyzer operator, was present to administer the test. After thirty minutes had passed and petitioner had not taken the test, Trooper Brown disassembled the breathalyzer machine and recorded the test results as a refusal by petitioner to submit to the test. Thereafter, by letter dated 19 May 1978, the Division of Motor Vehicles advised petitioner that, pursuant to G.S. § 20-16.2, his driver’s license was being revoked for a period of six months beginning 29 May 1978.
Petitioner thereupon sought and obtained on 25 May 1978 an Order restraining the Division from revoking his license until the matter was determined de novo in Superior Court, pursuant to G.S. § 20-16.2(e). He then petitioned the court to permanently restrain the Division from revoking his driving privileges, and the matter was heard before Judge Rouse on 9 October 1978. After the hearing Judge Rouse made detailed findings of fact and concluded that petitioner had not willfully refused to take the test. He ordered the Division to rescind its action in revoking the petitioner’s license. Respondent appealed.
Beaman, Kellum, Mills & Kafer, by David P. Voerman, for the petitioner appellee.
Attorney General Edmisten, by Deputy Attorney General William W. Melvin and Assistant Attorneys General William B. Ray and Mary I. Murrill, for the respondent appellant.

Opinion:
HEDRICK, Judge.
G.S. § 20-16.2 in pertinent part provides:
Mandatory revocation of license in event of refusal to submit to chemical tests; right of driver to request test. — (a) Any person who drives or operates a motor vehicle upon any highway or any public vehicular area shall be deemed to have given consent, . to a chemical test or tests of his breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if arrested for any offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The test or tests shall be administered at the request of a law-enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving or operating a motor vehicle on a highway or public vehicular area while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The law-enforcement officer shall designate which of the aforesaid tests shall be administered. The person arrested shall forthwith be taken before a person authorized to administer a chemical test and this person shall inform the person arrested both verbally and in writing and shall furnish the person a signed document setting out:
(1) That he has a right to refuse to take the test;
(2) That refusal to take the test will result in revocation of his driving privilege for six months;
(3) That he may have a physician, qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse or other qualified person of his own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the direction of the law-enforcement officer; and
(4) That he has the right to call an attorney and select a witness to view for him the testing procedures; but that the test shall not be delayed for this purpose for a period in excess of 30 minutes from the time he is notified of his rights.
(c) The arresting officer, in the presence of the person authorized to administer a chemical test, shall request that the person arrested submit to a test described in subsection (a). If the person arrested willfully refuses to submit to the chemical test designated by the arresting officer, none shall be given. However, upon the receipt of a sworn report of the arresting officer and the person authorized to administer a chemical test that the person arrested, after being advised of his rights as set forth in subsection (a), willfully refused to submit to the test upon the request of the officer, the Division shall revoke the driving privilege of the person arrested for a period of six months.
[Emphasis added.]
In Seders v. Powell, 298 N.C. 453, 259 S.E. 2d 544 (1979), a similar case involving facts virtually identical to those in the case at bar, our Supreme Court, in affirming the decision of this Court reported at 39 N.C. App. 491, 250 S.E. 2d 690 (1979), enunciated the following principles with respect to G.S. § 20-16.2:
The thirty-minute time limit referred to in G.S. § 20-16.2(a) (4) is absolute, and a person accused under the statute has no right to delay the test in excess of thirty minutes while waiting for his attorney to arrive or to return his call. [See also State v. Lloyd, 33 N.C. App. 370, 235 S.E. 2d 281 (1977).] Thus, a person who delays taking the test for more than thirty minutes in order to await an attorney runs the risk of having to face the consequences when the clock stops: that is, his failure to submit to the test will be recorded on the officer's report as a refusal. With respect to such a failure, the Seders Court stated: "Plaintiff's action constituted a conscious choice purposefully made and his omission to comply with this requirement of our motor vehicle law amounts to a willful refusal." Seders v. Powell, supra at 461, 259 S.E. 2d at 550 [Citations omitted.] [Our emphasis.]
The Seders decision further established beyond question that a person enjoys no constitutional right to confer with counsel before deciding whether to submit to the breathalyzer test. Moreover, it has been held that the State is not constitutionally required to give an accused an option to refuse the test. That is, the State can require that the test be administered without any delay or process other than reasonable grounds to believe the driver has violated the law. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed. 2d 908 (1966). Clearly, then, allowing the driver thirty minutes time to decide whether to submit to the test, while providing that he is deemed to have refused at the expiration of the thirty minutes, is a constitutionally sound principle.
In the present case, the trial court made the following unchallenged findings of fact:
Findings of Fact
4. Petitioner was arrested upon reasonable grounds at 8:45 p.m. on March 18, 1979 [sic] by Trooper Larry DuBose of the North Carolina Highway Patrol in Craven County and charged with the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
5. That the petitioner was forthwith taken before Trooper Johnnie [sic] W. Brown of the North Carolina State Highway Patrol, a duly licensed and qualified breathalyzer operator, and in the presence of Trooper Brown, the petitioner was requested by Trooper DuBose to submit to a chemical test of breath.
6. That Trooper Brown informed the petitioner verbally and in writing, furnished a signed document setting out all of the petitioner's rights pertaining to the breathalyzer test under the provisions of G.S. 2046.2(a). Trooper Brown completed reading the rights form to the petitioner at 9:19 p.m.
7. Petitioner . . . indicated to Trooper Brown that he would like to contact an attorney or have an attorney present during the test.
8. Prior to and after being advised of his rights with respect to the breathalyzer test, petitioner made calls from the telephone located within the Magistrate's Office in New Bern, North Carolina, in an attempt to contact an attorney.
10. Petitioner eventually called the home of Mr. Lamar Sledge, an attorney practicing law in New Bern, North Carolina. Mr. Sledge was not at home so a message was left. Mr. Sledge received the message when he returned home.
11. Upon being advised that he had received a call from someone at the Magistrate's office, Mr. Sledge contacted the Magistrate's office and was told that a person named Etheridge had asked for him to come to the Magistrate's office and that Mr. Etheridge had been charged with driving under the influence. Mr. Sledge immediately proceeded to the breathalyzer room.
12. Trooper Brown offered the breathalyzer test to petitioner at the conclusion of the required 20-minute waiting period and at the end of the 30-minute waiting period.
13. At the end of the 30-minute period Officer Brown proceeded to disassemble the breathalyzer machine. Within two to four minutes after the 30-minute period expired Mr. Sledge arrived. The officer had not completed the process of disassembling the breathalyzer machine. He was in the process of taking the ampules out when the attorney arrived.
14. Mr. Sledge asked to speak with petitioner. Officers] DuBose and Brown were there and indicated he could talk with the petitioner. . . .
15. Within two or three minutes after he arrived petitioner, upon advice of Mr. Sledge, indicated a willingness to take the test.
16. Officer Brown refused to administer the test at that time. This was approximately thirty-five minutes after the petitioner was advised of his rights with respect to the breathalyzer test.
17. Trooper Brown recorded the test results as a refusal on the part of the petitioner.
18. Petitioner's request to take the test was made within five minutes of the expiration of the 30-minute period, and was made immediately after consultation with his attorney.
By exceptions numbers 2 and 4, respondent attacks the following finding and conclusion:
19. Petitioner did not at any time refuse to take the test. [Finding of Fact.]
3. Petitioner herein, Mr. Gary D. Etheridge, did not willfully refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test. [Conclusion of Law.]
Regardless of the label, the holding of the trial judge that the petitioner did not willfully refuse to take the breathalyzer test under the circumstances of this case is an erroneous conclusion. The unchallenged findings of fact when viewed in light of the controlling principles enunciated by Justice Carlton in Seders, dictate the conclusion that petitioner did willfully refuse to take the breathalyzer test within the meaning of the statute. He was informed of his rights, and he consciously chose to run the risk of waiting too long. As stated in Seders, such action amounts to a willful refusal.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Superior Court must be reversed. The cause is remanded to that court for the entry of an order based on the unchallenged findings of fact concluding that the petitioner willfully refused to take the breathalyzer test within the meaning of G.S. § 20-16.2, and reinstating the Order of the Division of Motor Vehicles revoking petitioner's license.
Reversed and remanded.
Judge CLARK concurs.
Judge VAUGHN dissents.