Opinion ID: 2429656
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: implied-consent admonition form

Text: Finally, Johnson urges that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the charge of refusing to submit to a chemical test on the basis that he was inadequately informed of the consequences of refusing to take the test. The language of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-65-205(c) (Supp.1991), quoted above, states that the judge shall (emphasis added) order the Office of Driver Services to suspend or revoke the motor vehicle operator's license upon a judicial determination that the law enforcement officer had reasonable cause to believe that the arrested driver was DWI or while there was 0.10% of alcohol in the driver's blood and the driver refused to submit to a chemical test. The consent form which Johnson signed contained the following notice: If I have reasonable grounds for believing you have been driving or have been in actual control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated or while impaired by alcohol or a controlled substance, I can request that you take a chemical test of my choosing to determine your blood alcohol and/or controlled substance content. If you refuse this test and a court later determines that I had proper cause to require you to take the test, then your driver's license may be suspended for six months or more. (Emphasis added.) The arresting officer, Mark Meadows, testified that he read the rights and consent form to Johnson, who signed the line indicating his refusal to take a chemical test. Johnson himself stated at trial that he had read the form and believed that the phrase may be suspended meant that at least I had a chance of still keeping my license. He said that I thought you didn't have to take the test, then you could go to court and argue about it. Johnson cites two cases from other jurisdictions involving consent-form variants on statutory language. In State v. Huber, 540 N.E.2d 140 (Ind.App. 3 Dist.1989), the Indiana implied consent law provided that the refusal will result in the suspension of [the arrested person's] driving privileges. Ind.Code § 9-11-4-7(b) (1988). The appellate court found that the warning that your license may be suspended for one year was insufficient under the Indiana implied consent law, which requires an advisement that refusal will result in suspension. 540 N.E.2d at 141. In Graves v. Commonwealth, 112 Pa. Cmwlth. 390, 535 A.2d 707 (1988), the commonwealth court found the arresting officer's implied consent warning insufficient to convey the mandatory nature of the suspension entailed by refusal to submit to a chemical test. The driver had been advised that he could lose his license as a consequence of his refusal to take the test. This, the court said, was inadequate to convey the standard of certainty of the suspension that is mandated by the statute. 535 A.2d at 708. That statute, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat. § 1547(b)(2), provided that It shall be the duty of the police officer to inform the person that the person's operating privilege will be suspended or revoked upon refusal to submit to a chemical test. Arkansas, unlike Indiana and Pennsylvania, does not have a statutorily prescribed implied-consent admonition form. The General Assembly did not include such a requirement when it enacted the implied consent law. The United States Supreme Court has held that a defendant need not be apprised of the consequences of refusing to submit to a chemical test. South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983). As we observed in another context: The police should not be penalized for attempting to afford an unnecessary procedural safeguard to appellant. Allen v. State, 277 Ark. 380, 386, 641 S.W.2d 710, 714 (1982). The trial court did not err in finding that the appellant had been adequately informed of the consequences of refusing to take the prescribed chemical test. Affirmed. DUDLEY, J., concurs.