Court Opinion

ID: 9535631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:51:26.642328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:17.474886
License: Public Domain

Utter, C.J.
(dissenting) — I dissent. The majority characterizes the statute in question, RCW 46.64.017, as ambiguous, and then proceeds to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. The relevant part of the statute reads:
*39A law enforcement officer investigating at the scene of a motor vehicle accident may arrest the driver of a motor vehicle involved in the accident if the officer has probable cause to believe that the driver has committed in connection with the accident a violation of the traffic laws or regulations.
I find no ambiguity in the statute and there is no statutory restriction on where the arrest may be made.
Using standard rules of grammatical construction, the adverbial phrase "at the scene of a motor vehicle accident" modifies the participle "investigating" which in turn modifies the subject of the sentence, "a law enforcement officer". The phrase "at the scene of a motor vehicle accident" does not modify the verb phrase "may arrest" and there is, therefore, no statutory restriction on where the arrest may be made. If the legislature had wished to enact such restrictions, it could have done so.
The legislature's purpose is apparent. The arrest permitted may last no longer "than is reasonably necessary to issue and serve a citation and notice", unless the arrest is for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or the arrested person refuses to acknowledge his obligation to appear in court. By this provision the legislature intended that an officer have the authority necessary to bring to justice one who by unlawful operation of a motor vehicle has caused injury to persons or damage to property. The authority is properly limited to that which is necessary to achieve its purpose. Once a person has been cited and acknowledges his duty to appear, he is released unless there is suspicion of intoxication, in which case custody may be necessary for a lawfully administered test for intoxication.
The necessity for the arrest authority, as it is properly circumscribed in the provision, is no less when the investigating officer finds the suspect some distance from the scene of the accident, such as here, in a hospital.
Statutes are frequently unclear, but this is one case where, following standard rules of grammar, and reading the statute to understand its apparent intent, clarity does *40exist. I would hold that McDonald was legally arrested under RCW 46.64.017. The decisions of the Court of Appeals, the Superior Court, and the District Court should be reversed.
Horowitz and Dolliver, JJ., concur with Utter, C.J.
Reconsideration denied July 12, 1979.