Opinion ID: 2621304
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State v. Templeton

Text: The cases of State v. Templeton, State v. Marginean, State v. Marsh, and State v. Post came before the Court of Appeals, Division One, as consolidated cases on appeal. [7] On three separate occasions, Washington State Patrol troopers stopped and arrested for DUI Respondent John D. Templeton on April 19, 1998, Respondent Benjamin Marginean on February 2, 1998, and Richard Post on April 22, 1998. [8] Respondent James P. Marsh was stopped and arrested by a Washington State Patrol trooper for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs under the age of 21 years on May 16, 1998. [9] The arresting officers advised Respondents of their constitutional rights upon arrest as required under Miranda v. Arizona . [10] After transporting Respondents to police stations, the officers, reading from the WSP DUI Arrest Report form, advised them of their rights. [11] The advisement form read: [12] 1. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. 2. ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW. 3. IF YOU ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 18, ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A JUVENILE COURT PROSECUTION FOR A JUVENILE OFFENSE AND CAN ALSO BE USED AGAINST YOU IN AN ADULT COURT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IF THE JUVENILE COURT DECIDES THAT YOU ARE TO BE TRIED AS AN ADULT. 4. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY BEFORE ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS. 5. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT DURING QUESTIONING. 6. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD AN ATTORNEY, ONE WILL BE APPOINTED TO YOU WITHOUT COST, BEFORE OR DURING QUESTIONING, IF YOU SO DESIRE. 7. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THESE RIGHTS? Respondents signed the form acknowledging that they understood their rights and did not wish to exercise them at that time. [13] They also signed the implied consent warning form and submitted to the breath test. [14] Prior to the breath test, the officers asked and Respondents answered a series of preliminary questions. [15] Following questioning, the officers administered the BAC breath test to Respondents which in each instance indicated an alcohol concentration over the then legal limit of 0.10. [16] Respondents Templeton, Marginean and Post were formally charged in the King County District Court with driving while under the influence. [17] Respondent Marsh, being under the age of 21 years, was charged with minor driving after consuming alcohol. [18] Hearings were held in the King County Northeast District Court and Seattle District Court. [19] In each case, Respondents moved to suppress all evidence obtained after their arrests. [20] On September 3, 1998 the King County Northeast District Court, the Honorable David A. Steiner, granted the motions of Respondents Templeton and Marginean, ordering suppression of only the breath test in the Templeton case and ordering suppression of all the evidence after arrest in the Marginean case because the State did not comply with CrRLJ 3.1. [21] On May 29, 1998 the King County Northeast District Court, the Honorable Peter L. Nault, granted the motion of Respondent Marsh to suppress all evidence obtained subsequent to the advisement of rights given him after his arrest. [22] The State appealed those decisions to the King County Superior Court. [23] On September 13, 1999 the Superior Court, Judge Nicole MacInnes, affirmed the District Court's order suppressing the results of the BAC breath test, but reversed the suppression of statements made by Respondents. [24] On January 11, 1999 the King County Seattle District Court, the Honorable Barbara L. Linde, denied Respondent Post's motion, finding the State's advisement of rights complied with CrRLJ 3.1. [25] Respondent Post stipulated to a bench trial and proceeded to trial on the stipulated facts in the police report. [26] On February 5, 1999 the court found him guilty as charged. [27] Respondent Post appealed to the King County Superior Court, which reversed his conviction, ruling that the District Court erred by not suppressing the breath test results. [28] The State appealed each decision to the Court of Appeals, Division One. The court consolidated the cases and designated the matter as State of Washington v. John D. Templeton, Benjamin Marginean, James Marsh and Richard Post. Upon review, the Court of Appeals, the Honorable Anne L. Ellington writing, concluded the Supreme Court did not exceed its rule-making authority in adopting CrRLJ 3.1 requiring advisement of the right to counsel before administration of the alcohol breath test, and that the officers' warnings did not comply with CrRLJ 3.1, which constituted prejudicial error requiring suppression of the breath test results. [29] The State appealed the decision to this court. [30]