Opinion ID: 1406117
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in denying ward's motion to suppress the results of his intoximeter test?

Text: Alaska Statute 28.35.033(e) states: The person tested may have a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of the person's own choosing administer a chemical test in addition to the test administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person does not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer; the fact that the person under arrest sought to obtain such an additional test, and failed or was unable to do so, is likewise admissible in evidence. [5] Therefore, Ward had the right to have a blood test performed by a ... qualified person of [his] own choosing, i.e., by personnel at ANMC. The only reason given by the Troopers for not taking Ward to ANMC was that the state did not have a contract with ANMC. The state argues on appeal that the statute does not require the police to provide the driver with free transportation to the chosen facility, nor does it require the police to pay for the second test. See also Ward, 733 P.2d at 627. However, these concerns are not at issue in the instant case. Here the Troopers voluntarily offered to take Ward to the facility of his choice, began to drive him there, and then, en route, decided not to take him to ANMC because of the lack of a contract with the state. Furthermore, ANMC's Director of Ambulatory Care stated in his affidavit that the blood test would have been performed at Ward's request, and he did not dispute Ward's claim that it would have been performed at no cost to Ward or the state. The statute says nothing about contractual relationships between the state and qualified facilities for blood tests. It states only that the arrestee has the right to an additional test by a person of his or her own choosing. The Troopers denied Ward the right to obtain such a test after they had agreed to transport him to ANMC. This was a violation of Ward's right under AS 28.35.033(e).
The applicable statute provides a remedy for a defendant's inability to obtain an independent blood test: The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person does not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer; the fact that the person under arrest sought to obtain such an additional test, and failed or was unable to do so, is likewise admissible in evidence. AS 28.35.033(e). The state argues that the statutory remedy is the exclusive one available to Ward. In a case such as the instant one, however, such a remedy is inadequate to protect the interests of the defendant. Thus, we must consider, as we did previously in Copelin v. State, 659 P.2d 1206, 1214 (Alaska 1983), whether invocation of the exclusionary rule is appropriate ... even though there is no provision for doing so in the statute... . We conclude that where, as here, the police deprive a defendant of his or her statutory right to an independent blood test, the results of the defendant's breath test must be excluded. [6] The analysis we employed in Copelin is equally applicable, and equally compelling, here. The breathalyzer test ... provides time for reflection before action and ... consists of intentional efforts by the police to obtain evidence. Copelin, 659 P.2d at 1214. Because the police in the instant case acted deliberately in denying a defendant the right to a blood test, application of the exclusionary rule will serve to deter future illegal police conduct. Id. See also Whisenhunt v. State, Department of Public Safety, 746 P.2d 1298, 1299 (Alaska 1987) (violation of statutory right to consult counsel before being required to decide whether to submit to breathalyzer test requires suppression of breathalyzer results in a civil license revocation proceeding). Furthermore, a violation in this type of case ... has an effect on the defendant's ability to present a defense at trial. Copelin, 659 P.2d at 1214-15. We articulated our concern for the defendant's ability to put on a defense in Whisenhunt. [A]n additional test of breath or blood ... may be of particular importance since it is a means of testing the reliability of the police administered test. The latter is not entitled to a conclusive presumption of accuracy. 746 P.2d at 1299 (citations omitted). Ward was unable, as a result of being denied a blood test, to attack the accuracy of his Intoximeter test. See Lauderdale v. State, 548 P.2d 376, 381 (Alaska 1976); Municipality of Anchorage v. Serrano, 649 P.2d 256, 259 (Alaska App. 1982). The results of his Intoximeter test must therefore be suppressed.