Opinion ID: 2635293
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hartman's Driver's License Revocation Should Be Reversed.

Text: Hartman's driver's license revocation should be reversed because the statutory provisions underlying administration of a breath test, the revocation of a driver's license, and the driver's license revocation appeal process are contingent upon a lawful arrest. [42] Alaska Statute 28.15.165(a) requires an officer to notify a person who has failed or refused to take a chemical or breath test administered under AS 28.35.031(a) that the department intends to revoke his driver's license and that he has a right to administrative review. Alaska Statute 28.35.031(a)  part of the implied consent statute  provides: A person who operates or drives a motor vehicle in this state . . . shall be considered to have given consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the person's blood or breath if lawfully arrested for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was operating or driving a motor vehicle . . . while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled substance. . . . The test or tests shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that the person was operating or driving a motor vehicle . . . in this state while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. . . . (Emphasis added.) And AS 28.15.166(g) provides that a DMV hearing officer may consider two issues when reviewing the DMV driver's license revocation decision: first, whether the law enforcement officer had  probable cause to believe . . . that the person was operating a motor vehicle . . . while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled substance, and second, whether the person refused to submit to the chemical test or the chemical test produced a result indicating the person had a blood alcohol content at or above .08 percent. (Emphasis added.) Under AS 28.15.166(j), if one of the subsection .166(g) issues is determined in the negative by the hearing officer, the department's action shall be rescinded. Alaska Statute 28.35.031(a) and AS 28.15.166(g) require a driver's license revocation to be based upon a lawful arrest. Under AS 28.35.031(a), the state may not use breath test results that are obtained following an unlawful arrest. And under AS 28.15.166(j), the driver's license revocation must be rescinded if the officer did not have probable cause to believe that the person was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. For reasons I explained in Part B, the investigatory stop was unlawful. The ensuing arrest was also unlawful because Trooper Tuckwood established probable cause to arrest Hartman with information gathered during the unlawful stop. [A]n arrest is invalid if it follows as a consequence of and depends upon [an] unlawful stop. . . . [A]n unlawful stop may `invalidate' an ensuing arrest . . . through the exclusion of evidence garnered from the stop. [43] Without the investigatory stop, Trooper Tuckwood would not have had probable cause to arrest Hartman for driving while intoxicated. It was only after the stop that Trooper Tuckwood confirmed the identity of the driver of the Honda or had any evidence (aside from the smell of alcohol in the Honda) of Hartman's intoxication. Because a driver's license revocation is premised on a lawful arrest, and because Trooper Tuckwood's arrest of Hartman was unlawful, we should reverse his driver's license revocation. [44]