Court Opinion

ID: 9566431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:39:15.835167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:32.083139
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(dissenting):
When a person is arrested and there is reasonable ground for the officer to believe that he is driving while intoxicated, the statute requires that he submit to the tests required by statute or suffer the consequences. If these tests cannot be given within a comparatively short time after the arrest, their usefulness is lost. It is for this reason that I do not believe that this plaintiff, or anyone else, arrested under such circumstances, has any right to impose any such condition as plaintiff attempted to impose here. If the plaintiff was innocent of being intoxicated, the test would have helped her. If she was guilty, that should be ascertained in the interest of law enforcement and public safety.
The arguments supporting the position of the person suspected of being intoxicated, and the contrary arguments, supporting the right and duty of the arresting officer to give the tests, are set forth in the prevailing and dissenting opinions in the recent case of Gassman v. Dorius, 543 P.2d 197. In the interest of economy of the printed page, I spare repetition here by referring to and reaffirming my concurrence with what Justice Ellett said in his dissenting opinion in that case.
ELLETT, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of CROCKETT, J.
MAUGHAN, J., having disqualified himself, does not participate herein.