Court Opinion

ID: 9527651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:32:18.709518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:02.397101
License: Public Domain

LANSING, J., specially
concurring.
I differ from the majority only with respect to the scope of the remedy to be pro*186vided as a consequence of the deprivation of Ida Carr’s right to due process. In my view, the rationale for suppression of the BAC test is equally applicable to other evidence of Carr’s intoxication that the State might present through testimony of the arresting officer and others regarding their observation of Carr’s appearance or behavior. The evidence which Carr was prevented from preserving would be as necessary to rebut an officer’s testimony that Carr smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech or exhibited poor balance as it would be to counter the BAC test results. Therefore, I would suppress not only evidence of the BAC test but also testimony of the State’s witnesses as to their observations of Carr, after her vehicle was stopped, that suggested intoxication. I would not suppress testimony as to any observation of Carr’s erratic driving since any person Carr might have been able to contact had she been allowed to use the telephone would not have been able to procure evidence of Carr’s conduct while driving.
In all other respects, I join in the majority opinion.