Opinion ID: 2103414
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Opportunity to Submit to a Chemical Test

Text: Lane argues that her right to conduct her defense was unconstitutionally deprived when she was not provided the opportunity to develop exculpatory evidence. The court found that Lane's right to due process was not denied because [s]he was taken to the hospital, and the person [who] was to administer the test was present and available at that juncture, and she decided that she was going to the bathroom first. Considering Lane responsible for the consequences of her conduct, the court found on ruling on Lane's motion for a new trial that she had the opportunity to take a blood test. [4] We find no clear error and affirm Lane's conviction. We have consistently stated the right due process affords one who has been arrested for operating under the influence is not the right to have a test sample taken, but only to have a reasonable opportunity to attempt to gather the desired evidence. State v. Munsey, 152 Me. 198, 127 A.2d 79, 81-82 (1956); State v. Landry, 428 A.2d 1204 (Me.1981) (when defendant refused to submit to a chemical test until he could contact friends, he was found to have voluntarily refused a reasonable opportunity to submit to a chemical test); State v. Copeland, 391 A.2d 836 (Me.1978) (treating defendant's refusal to sign a release form as a refusal of the opportunity to submit to a blood test); State v. Roberge, 306 A.2d 13 (Me.1973) (officer refused to permit defendant to choose his own physician for a chemical test when granting defendant's request would be uneconomical and inconvenient and defendant had the opportunity to be tested at a facility used by the police department). The question is whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's own conduct resulted in the failure to obtain a chemical test. See Munsey, 127 A.2d at 81-82. The concept of due process may mandate that a police officer shall not interfere with the reasonable opportunity, consistent with the demands of safe custody, of a defendant to procure the seasonable taking of a test which might provide evidence in defendant's behalf. Beyond this, however, there is no constitutional duty of a police officer affirmatively to assist the defendant in any undertaking to acquire such possibly exculpatory evidence. State v. Allen, 377 A.2d 472, 474 (Me.1977) (emphasis added by Allen (citation omitted)). Due process requires only that Lane be afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit to a chemical test. Munsey, 127 A.2d at 82; Allen, 377 A.2d at 474-75. Lane was given a choice between a breath test and blood-alcohol test. The officer accommodated her request for a blood test by taking her to the hospital. She then proceeded to refuse administration of the test until she used the rest room. Lane was uncooperative with established procedure. Similar to the defendant in Landry who insisted on contacting friends before he would consent to a chemical test, Lane's actions could be found to have constituted a refusal to seize the available opportunity. Landry, 428 A.2d at 1206. The court could conclude that Lane had a reasonable opportunity to submit to a blood test.