Court Opinion

ID: 6552091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:28:28.439378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:56:08.151423
License: Public Domain

James R. Cooper, Judge, dissenting. I dissent because I cannot agree that the Russellville Police Department provided the appellant with reasonable assistance in obtaining an additional test, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-204 (Repl. 1993). That statute provides that, if a breathalyzer test is administered to a DWI suspect by police authorities: (e) The person tested may have a physician or a qualified technician, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his own choice administer a complete chemical test in addition to any test administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. (1) The law enforcement officer shall advise the person of this right. (2) The refusal or failure of a law enforcement officer to advise such person of this right and to permit and assist the person to obtain such test shall preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer. (Emphasis added). We found that reasonable assistance was rendered in Hudson v. State, 43 Ark. App. 190, 863 S.W.2d 323 (1993). However, in that case police officers transported the appellant to a local hospital, where the appellant declined to have a blood specimen taken for a blood alcohol test. In the case at bar, the appellant never had the opportunity to have such a test administered because the police officer refused to take him to St. Mary’s hospital after informing him that this was the only facility within his jurisdiction which was available to perform the blood test. Clearly, the “assistance” offered the appellant focused his efforts to obtain an additional test on one particular facility which, Officer Cross admitted, was known to him to be a “very expensive” hospital. This is certainly borne out by the $400.00 price charged for the test. Perhaps the level of assistance offered would have been reasonable had the police officer transported the appellant to the hospital to allow him to make arrangements with the staff regarding available tests and payment options. However, to focus the appellant’s efforts to obtain an additional test on a hospital known to be very expensive which requires payment in cash, and then to refuse to transport him to that facility because he, predictably, does not have sufficient funds on his person, is no assistance whatsoever. I believe that the “assistance” offered the appellant actually had a chilling effect on his right to have an additional test, and that more actual assistance would have been rendered by merely providing the appellant with a telephone and a local directory. I respectfully dissent. Robbins, J., joins in this dissent.