Opinion ID: 891566
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: defendant's consent to the blood test was valid

Text: {35} Defendant argues that the results of his blood test should be suppressed because the test was taken without his voluntary consent. He admits that he ultimately consented to the blood draw. However, he argues that his consent was not valid because it was the product of duress and coercion. We disagree. {36} The record shows that once Defendant was arrested at the hospital, he was asked more than twice if he would consent to a blood draw and that he refused these numerous requests. However, after Defendant had been evaluated and scheduled for release from the emergency room, the arresting officer gave him a last chance to consent to the blood draw. The officer explained to him that if he did not consent to the blood draw, he would be charged with aggravated DWI and, if he were to be convicted, the consequences of that conviction. Defendant then consented to have his blood drawn. {37} The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress the results of his blood draw. Slayton, No. 27,892, slip op. at 12-13. The Court of Appeals concluded that Defendant only had the right `not to be forcibly tested after manifesting refusal.' Id. at 12 (quoting McKay v. Davis, 99 N.M. 29, 30, 653 P.2d 860, 861 (1982)). We agree. Any person who operates a motor vehicle within this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of the Implied Consent Act [66-8-105 NMSA 1978], to chemical tests of his breath or blood or both ... for the purpose of determining the drug or alcohol content of his blood if arrested for any offense arising out of the acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or drug. NMSA 1978, {66-8-107(A) (1978, as amended through 2003). The Implied Consent Act also provides that if a person refuses to submit to a breath or blood test, none shall be administered except when a municipal judge, magistrate or district judge issues a search warrant authorizing chemical tests as provided in Section 66-8-107 NMSA 1978[.] NMSA 1978, § 66-8-111(A) (1978, as amended through 2005). This right, however, is a only a right not to be forcibly tested after manifesting refusal. McKay, 99 N.M. at 30, 653 P.2d at 861. {38} Defendant does not argue that he was forcibly tested. Rather, he argues that his consent was coerced by the arresting officer's explanation that if he did not consent, he would be charged with aggravated DWI. As explained previously, Defendant's implied consent to the blood draw was given when he got behind the wheel and took to the road. As a result, any coercion affecting his consent would be to his willingness to drive the vehicle, not to submit to the blood test. Therefore, because Defendant was neither forcibly tested nor coerced to drive his vehicle, he consented pursuant to the Implied Consent Act, regardless of the officer's representations of the consequences of his failure to submit.