Court Opinion

ID: 9537201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:14:06.796359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:11.822965
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result. I disagree with the majority, however, when it states that
“the focus of the liberty interest is not on theecontent of the communication but on the fact of whether it is permitted. In other words, if the communication is not adequate — i.e., advice sought and received — there is no significance vis-a-vis the decision whether to submit to a breath test.” 87 Or App 137 at 140.
The focus of the liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment is not merely on whether a communication is made. If a person who is arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants chooses to contact an attorney, the interest includes a reasonable opportunity to talk with the attorney in confidence, subject to the ability of the police to maintain the visual surveillance that OAR 257-30-020(1) requires. See Capretta v. MVD, 29 Or App 241, 246, 562 P2d 1236 (1977) (Thornton, J., concurring).
Here, the officer did not initially allow petitioner to exercise his liberty interest, because he listened to petitioner’s end of the conversation with the attorney, destroyed its confidentiality and thereby chilled the process of communication. The state did not show that it was necessary for the officer to intrude to maintain visual surveillance. The majority impliedly recognizes this point, because it proceeds to address the reasonableness of petitioner’s insistence on waiting for his attorney’s arrival.
Nonetheless, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that petitioner’s eventual non-submission to the breath test was a refusal. Neither petitioner nor his attorney requested that the officer stop listening to petitioner’s end of the telephone conversation. The attorney told the officer that he would come to the police station to confer with his client in 15 minutes. The officer agreed to wait and did wait for more than 15 minutes. When the attorney had failed to arrive after 25 minutes, the officer reasonably determined that further delay would interfere with the effective administration of the test. At that point, he had provided petitioner with a reasonable *144opportunity to communicate with his attorney. When the officer then renewed his request that petitioner take the test, nonsubmission was a refusal.