Court Opinion

ID: 9604671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:25:20.571199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:25.037425
License: Public Domain

Callow, J. —
This case involves the right of a person suspected of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor to have a second Breathalyzer test performed at the suspect's request contemporaneously with the one performed at the request of the arresting officer. The defendants assert that such a right is guaranteed either by RCW 46.20.308(2) and 46.61.506 or by article 1, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution. We hold that the right to a second Breathalyzer test is neither statutorily or constitutionally guaranteed.
John Appel was arrested for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI) in Whatcom County on September 6, 1984. He was read his Miranda rights by *31the state trooper who made the arrest and was permitted to call his attorney prior to taking the Breathalyzer test. His attorney advised him to request a second breath test, which he did. The officer took the telephone and advised Mr. Appel's attorney that he would not administer a second Breathalyzer test, noting that some jurisdictions administer second tests upon request, but that local policy was to deny such requests. Mr. Appel took the Breathalyzer test with a resultant reading of .13 percent blood alcohol content.
John Appel's motion to dismiss and/or suppress evidence of the single Breathalyzer test in Whatcom County District Court was denied. Appel obtained a writ of review. The matter was considered by the Superior Court, and an order affirming the District Court was entered thereafter.
Patricia Harding was arrested in Whatcom County on February 28, 1985, also as a DWI suspect. She was read her Miranda rights, called her attorney, and requested a second Breathalyzer test. The arresting officer, a different state trooper than the one who had arrested John Appel, refused to conduct a second breath test on the grounds that it was against local policy. Ms. Harding took the Breathalyzer test, with a reading of .16 blood alcohol content. She claims that she had not consumed sufficient alcohol to produce such a reading. Mr. Raymond Davis, an expert in the interpretation of blood alcohol levels, testified that the amount of alcohol Ms. Harding claims to have consumed would have produced a blood alcohol content of no more than .06 percent. Mr. Davis also testified that a second breath test administered contemporaneously with the first is necessary to ensure the accuracy of the first test.
Patricia Harding's motion to dismiss and/or suppress evidence in Whatcom County District Court was denied. She obtained a writ of review to the Superior Court and an order affirming the District Court was entered thereafter.
Scott Stannard was arrested as a DWI suspect on May 6, 1984. He was read his Miranda rights, called an attorney, and requested that a second Breathalyzer test be given by the arresting officer, a third state trooper. Mr. Stannard *32submitted to the Breathalyzer test, but hyperventilated prior to taking it. The arresting trooper refused to administer a second Breathalyzer test, stating that local policy was to administer the test only once. Mr. Stannard was transported to Whatcom County Jail by yet another state trooper to whom he repeated his request for a second Breathalyzer test. Stannard claims to have requested a blood test as well, which claim is denied by the transporting trooper. Stannard claims that when he was booked in jail he again requested a second Breathalyzer test and a blood test, neither of which was given.
Mr. Stannard's motion to dismiss and/or suppress Breathalyzer results was denied in the Whatcom County District Court. The court made specific findings that Stan-nard did request a second Breathalyzer test, but did not clearly request a blood test. Stannard was found guilty of driving while under the influence based upon the stipulated admission of the police reports. He appealed to the Superior Court where the conviction was affirmed.
Mr. Stannard thereafter filed a notice for discretionary review with the Court of Appeals. The motion was denied by the court commissioner and a motion to modify the commissioner's ruling was denied by the Court of Appeals. Discretionary review was sought in this court. We ultimately permitted review and consolidated the cause with State v. Appel and State v. Harding by an order entered June 4, 1986.
Before being asked to submit to the Breathalyzer test, each of the defendants was read the following "implied consent warnings":
You are under arrest for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Further, you are now being asked to submit to a chemical test of your breath to determine the alcoholic content of your blood. You are now advised that you have the right to refuse this breath test; that if you refuse, your privilege to drive will be revoked or denied by the Department of Licensing; and that you have the right to additional tests administered by a qualified person of your own choos*33ing, and at your own expense and that your refusal to take the test may be used against you in a subsequent criminal trial.
(Italics ours.) These warnings are statutorily required under former RCW 46.20.308, which in 1980 provided in pertinent part:
Implied consent — Revocation, etc., for refusal to submit to chemical tests to determine alcoholic content of blood. (1) Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61-.506, to a chemical test or tests of his breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if arrested for any offense where, at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The test or tests shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Such officer shall inform the person of his right to refuse the test, and of his right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his choosing as provided in RCW 46.61.506. The officer shall warn the driver that his privilege to drive will be revoked or denied if he refuses to submit to the test. Unless the person to be tested is unconscious, the chemical test administered shall be of his breath only. . .
This provision was amended in 1983, effective January 1, 1985, to read as follows:
Implied consent — Revocation, etc., for refusal to submit to chemical tests to determine alcoholic content of blood. (Effective January 1, 1985.) (1) Any person who operates a motor vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506, to a chemical test or tests of his or her breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood if arrested for any offense where, at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer has *34reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
(2) The test or tests shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The officer shall inform the person of his or her right to refuse the test, and of his or her right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his or her choosing as provided in RCW 46.61.506. The officer shall warn the driver that (a) his or her privilege to drive will he revoked or denied if he or she refuses to submit to the test, (b) that his or her privilege to drive will be suspended, revoked, or denied if the test is administered and the test indicates a concentration of alcohol in his or her blood of 0.10 percent or more, and (c) that his or her refusal to take the test may be used against him or her in a subsequent criminal trial.
(3) Except as provided in this subsection and subsection (4) of this section, the chemical test administered shall be of the breath only.
(Italics ours.)
Former RCW 46.61.506 provides, in pertinent part:
(3) Chemical analysis of the person's blood or breath to be considered valid under the provisions of this section or RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 shall have been performed according to methods approved by the state toxicologist and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the state toxicologist for this purpose. . . .
(5) The person tested may have a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person shall not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test or tests taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer.
(Italics ours.)
The defendants argue that the import of these statutes is *35to create in DWI suspects a right to have additional tests of blood alcohol content performed by any qualified person, including the police officer who performed the initial Breathalyzer test at the request of the arresting officer. We disagree.
The intent of former RCW 46.61.506(5) is to afford a DWI suspect the opportunity to obtain evidence with which to impeach the results of a single Breathalyzer test, if such evidence exists. The suspect also takes the risk that the second test will verify and substantiate the results of the first. The statute strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of the accused to gather evidence in his own defense and the need to avoid undue burdens upon the State. The accused is given the right to choose the type of additional chemical test to be administered and the person to perform the test, so long as that person is available, willing and "qualified" to do so by being on the statutory list.
The State argues that the right of a DWI suspect to obtain additional chemical tests of blood alcohol content should not allow a suspect to "compel" a police officer to administer the test, equating such compulsion to a hypothetical rule requiring that a doctor or nurse of the suspect's choosing be furnished to administer a blood test. We agree. The doctor, nurse or other qualified person could not be forced to appear and perform a test at the behest of a DWI suspect and the statute does not require the police officer to repeat a Breathalyzer test to insure its accuracy. An officer who has just administered a Breathalyzer test for the purpose of collecting evidence on behalf of the State is qualified by virtue of having been licensed by the state toxicologist to administer the Breathalyzer, and is available to readminister the test. However, when a DWI suspect requests an officer to administer an additional test of blood alcohol content, the officer is not required to do so under the statutory scheme of RCW 46.20.308(2) and RCW 46.61.506(5). The statute gives the accused the right to seek out someone in the group enumerated in RCW 46.61.506(5) *36to perform a second test, but police officers are not included within the group enumerated by the Legislature.
Police officers must not impede the efforts of an accused to secure a second test, but our holding in Blaine v. Suess, 93 Wn.2d 722, 612 P.2d 789 (1980) did not require law enforcement officers to perform the tests themselves. Blaine noted that a defendant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to gather evidence in his defense and whether he was granted that opportunity "depends heavily on the particular circumstances." See also State v. Reed, 36 Wn. App. 193, 672 P.2d 1277 (1983). The rule permits a reasonable opportunity to gather evidence and the statutory scheme provides that reasonable opportunity by permitting the accused to secure outside tests.
Statutes should be construed to effect their purpose and unlikely, absurd or strained consequences should be avoided. State v. Richardson, 81 Wn.2d 111, 499 P.2d 1264 (1972). Former RCW 46.61.506 did not expressly grant the right to have an additional "test or tests" administered by anyone except the enumerated list of qualified persons, i.e., physicians, technicians, chemists, nurses or other qualified persons. State v. Richardson, supra at 116, discussing the right to have additional tests stated:
We cannot agree with these assumptions. The language which the people themselves used in describing the right in question, in RCW 46.20.308, is sufficiently clear to give to a person of average mentality the understanding that he may have his own tests made if he fears the accuracy or fairness of the test to be given by law enforcement officers. It is this information which he needs in order to make his decision whether to submit to a test, and it, plus the information that his license will be revoked or denied if he refuses, is all that is necessary to the exercise of an intelligent judgment upon that question.
(Italics ours.)
We read the two statutes together and hold that under RCW 46.20.308(2) and 46.61.506(5) a person accused of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor is not entitled, upon request, to have a second Breathalyzer *37test administered by the officer who performs the initial Breathalyzer test. State v. Russell, 41 Wn. App. 391, 704 P.2d 1214 (1985).
Finally, we consider the constitutional aspects of the issue. A defendant charged with a crime has a right to have material evidence preserved for use at trial. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 85, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, 83 S. Ct. 1114 (1963); State v. Wright, 87 Wn.2d 783, 557 P.2d 1 (1976). The due process clause guarantees the preservation of material evidence and to meet this standard of materiality the evidence must both (1) possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and (2) must be of such a nature that the evidence would be unobtainable by other reasonably available means. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 81 L. Ed. 2d 413, 104 S. Ct. 2528 (1984); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342, 96 S. Ct. 2392 (1976).
It is apparent that evidence which is merely cumulative cannot be material. Further, the evidence has to be shown to have been exculpatory in order to meet the constitutional standard of materiality. At best, whether the results of a second test would be exculpatory or incriminating can be no more than speculative and, therefore, of questionable assistance to the defendant. California v. Trombetta, supra at 488-89, stated:
More importantly, California's policy of not preserving breath samples is without constitutional defect. Whatever duty the Constitution imposes on the States to preserve evidence, that duty must be limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect's defense. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, see United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. at 109-110, evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. Neither of these conditions is met on the facts of this case.
Although the preservation of breath samples might conceivably have contributed to respondents' defenses, a *38dispassionate review of the Intoxilyzer and the California testing procedures can only lead one to conclude that the chances are extremely low that preserved samples would have been exculpatory. . . . Once the Intoxilyzer indicated that respondents were legally drunk, breath samples were much more likely to provide inculpatory than exculpatory evidence.
(Footnote omitted.) Justice O'Connor, in concurring, stated succinctly, at pages 491-92:
The failure to preserve breath samples does not render a prosecution fundamentally unfair, and thus cannot render breath-analysis tests inadmissible as evidence against the accused. . . . Similarly, the failure to employ alternative methods of testing blood-alcohol concentrations is of no due process concern, both because persons are presumed to know their rights under the law and because the existence of tests not used in no way affects the fundamental fairness of the convictions actually obtained.
The principles stated in regard to the preservation of evidence for the defense of an accused apply equally to the securing of evidence by an accused. Evidence must be shown to be both material and exculpatory in order for it to be fundamentally unfair to deny defendant the opportunity to present it in his defense.
There is no showing that any of the defendants were prevented from seeking and securing an alternative test as provided under former RCW 46.61.506. Further, it has not been shown that the securing of a second Breathalyzer test would have been exculpatory.
The cases of State v. Appel and State v. Harding are remanded for trial with the State permitted to offer in evidence the results of the Breathalyzer tests conducted of the accuseds. The conviction of Scott Stannard is affirmed.
Brachtenbach, Dolliver, Andersen, Goodloe, and Durham, JJ., concur.