Title: State v. Heles
Citation: 272 N.W.2d 808
Docket Number: 12272
State: south-dakota
Issuer: south-dakota Supreme Court
Date: December 26, 1978

272 N.W.2d 808 (1978) STATE of South Dakota, Respondent, v. Patrick F. HELES, Appellant. No. 12272. Supreme Court of South Dakota. December 26, 1978. *809 Judith A. Atkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for respondent; William J. Janklow, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief. John P. Blackburn, Yankton, for appellant. PER CURIAM. This case involves the revocation of the driver's license of Patrick F. Heles by the Department of Public Safety (department) after an administrative hearing before a department examiner regarding Heles' refusal to submit to a chemical breath test. Heles petitioned the circuit court for a trial de novo pursuant to SDCL 32-23-12 and the circuit court upheld the order of the department which revoked Heles' license for a period of one year. We affirm. On December 9, 1975, an officer of the South Dakota Highway Patrol observed Heles operating his vehicle in an erratic, swerving manner and failing to dim the headlights on his vehicle for oncoming traffic. The officer stopped Heles' vehicle and detected an odor of alcohol. Thereupon, the officer conducted field sobriety tests which Heles failed to execute satisfactorily. The officer informed Heles that he was under arrest for driving while intoxicated in violation of SDCL 32-23-1. At the scene of the arrest, the officer twice read to Heles the following implied consent warning, which embodies SDCL 32-23-10, 32-23-11, 32-23-12: Heles responded to the request for a chemical breath test by asking the officer for his advice. A similar response was given after Heles was again read the implied consent warning upon arrival at the police station. Heles continued his failure to reply to the officer's request and insisted on calling his attorney. Heles was advised that his actions would be taken as a refusal to submit to the chemical breath test. Approximately one hour after Heles was arrested, he had a telephone conversation with his attorney and the attorney twice requested of the officer that Heles be allowed to take the chemical breath test. The officer denied the request. At Heles' request, a hearing was conducted before a department examiner on February 4, 1976, to determine whether Heles' driver's license should be revoked for one year for refusal to submit to the chemical breath test. The hearing examiner concluded that the driver's license should be revoked for a period of one year and entered an order accordingly. The circuit court held a trial de novo and upheld the order of the hearing examiner. The order revoking the driver's license has been stayed pending the outcome of this appeal. *810 We have discussed the purpose for and validity of the implied consent law at length in Peterson v. State, 1977, S.D., 261 N.W.2d 405, which we deem to be dispositive of this case. See also, Matter of Kotas, 1977, S.D., 261 N.W.2d 415; Blow v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 1969, 83 S.D. 628, 164 N.W.2d 351. In Peterson, we stated that For the reasons advanced in Peterson, supra, we hold that Heles' conduct constituted, as a matter of law, a refusal of the chemical breath test requested by the officer and that his driver's license was properly revoked. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. MORGAN, J., deeming himself disqualified did not participate in this opinion.