Court Opinion

ID: 9856837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 07:00:37.848009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:01.259142
License: Public Domain

McQUADE, Justice
(concurring specially)-
In concurring with the majority I would like to emphasize that there is no magic in the one-hour period of time in which the blood alcohol test may be made. It is designed primarily to effectively calculate the greatest amount of alcohol in the bloodstream for prosecution of a criminal offense. However, it is my opinion that at anytime after the one-hour period a motorist may still consent to take the test and the officer must comply with such request.
In advising a motorist of his right to counsel the officer is complying with the constitutional rights of a motorist in regards to criminal action which may be pressed against such motorist. To effectively implement Miranda warnings1 the officer must make available means by which a driver can contact an attorney for the purpose of obtaining information and advice with regard to his legal rights in-eluding those relating to a blood alcohol test. The attorney may inform the driver to take the blood alcohol test as a means to positively establish the blood alcohol content. Although such request by a citizen may be subsequent to the one-hour period such test may be used on behalf of the defendant or the State in the event criminal prosecution is maintained. See I.C. § 19-1309(1) (b). The lapse of time would relate to the weight of the evidence. Admissibility of such test results would depend, as any other evidence, on its relevancy. This evidence, albeit executively tardy by the Department of Law Enforcement standards, may be of value to both the prosecution and the defense.

. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, at 478-479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).