Court Opinion

ID: 9797066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:12:26.771831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:30.632804
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
with whom CARPENETI, Justice, joins, dissenting in part.
I disagree with one aspect of today’s opinion. Instead of remanding so that the superior court may decide in the first instance whether exigent circumstances are inherently present where there is a breathalyzer test under AS 28.35.031(g) based on probable cause that the person tested has committed a crime and that the test will produce relevant evidence (and if not whether exigent circumstances existed under the particular facts of this case), I think this court should decide the question now. The homicide in this ease occurred more than nine years ago, and further delay should be avoided, if reasonably possible. The question is briefed, and the state of the law is accurately represented in notes 44 and 45 and the related text of the court’s opinion. All that remains is for the court to make a decision.
The decision is not a difficult one. Because the body dissipates alcohol over the course of a few hours, most jurisdictions have held that an exigency exists that dispenses with the need for a warrant whenever alcohol is relevant .evidence.1 Of course probable *165cause to believe that the person to be tested has committed a crime and that a test for alcohol will produce relevant evidence is still required. For the reasons that follow, I agree with the majority rule when, as here, the search in question is no more intrusive than a breath test.
First, the physiological basis for the rule— the relatively rapid elimination of alcohol from the body — is beyond dispute. The rule is easy for the police officer in the field to understand and follow. It eliminates difficult and often undeterminable questions — and litigation of those questions — as to whether a warrant application might have been prepared and presented to a judge in time for a warrant to have issued and a test conducted before alcohol levels were diminished beyond the limits of reliable testing.
Second, we adopted a categorical approach to body alcohol evidence under an exigent circumstances exception in Anchorage v. Geber.2 There we rejected an argument that the defendant had a right to have counsel present during field sobriety tests that were conducted at the police station after the defendant had already been arrested.3 She argued that the right to counsel at such tests was analogous to the right to have counsel present at a pre-indictment line-up. We had recognized in Blue v. State4 that the latter right was subject to an exigent circumstances exception — “unless exigent circumstances exist so that providing counsel would unduly interfere with a prompt and purposeful investigation.”5 In Geber we rejected the defendant’s right to counsel argument categorically, without examining whether under the particular facts of the case the presence of counsel at the police station could have quickly been secured. We stated:
Field sobriety tests are used to determine whether a suspect has used alcohol and, if so, the degree to which his mental and physical skills have been impaired. It is common knowledge that one’s ability to perform such tests is influenced by the percentage of alcohol in his or her blood, and that that percentage diminishes with the passage of time. Such being the case, *166if the tests are to provide any real indicator of the degree of impairment, if any, existing at the time of the alleged offense, they must be performed as soon thereafter as possible. This fact alone distinguishes such cases from the usual lineup situation ..where the passage of a few hours would have little or no effect.[6]
Geber’s categorical, rather than case-by-case, treatment of diminishing alcohol-related evidence in the context of the exigent circumstances exception to the right to counsel indicates that a similar approach should be taken in the context of the same exception to the warrant requirement.7
Finally, an especially persuasive reason to conclude that no case-by-case examination of exigent circumstances is required for breath searches under subsection .031(g) lies in the fact that the underlying rationale for such searches is the same as the rationale for garden variety drunk driving breath searches under subsection .031(a). As to the latter it is clear that no case-by-case examination of exigent circumstances is required.8 Because this categorical treatment of the exigency requirement is valid with respect to subsection .031(a), such treatment should likewise be valid when applied to subsection .031(g).
Subsections .031(a) and .031(g) both give statutory authorization for breath tests.9 *167The first applies to typical drunk driving situations whereas the second applies to cases where there is a ear accident involving death or serious injury to another person. Under both subsections, the reason for administering the breath test is to obtain relevant evidence of the person’s blood alcohol content. The rationale underlying the treatment of exigency under both subsections is the same: to avoid the destruction of evidence through the body’s dissipation of alcohol. And the elements required for a constitutionally permissible search under Schmerber v. State of California are the same for both subsections: (1) probable cause to believe that the person to be tested has committed a crime; (2) probable cause to believe that a breath test will produce evidence relevant to the crime; and (3) exigent circumstances.10 Because the rationale and the constitutional requirements for subsections .031(a) and .031(g) are the same, there is no reason to recognize the inherent exigency created by the presence of alcohol in the body when subsection .031(a) is in play but fail to do so when the subsection in question is .031(g).
Today’s opinion makes clear that it is probable cause, not the fact of the arrest, that justifies a search for body alcohol content. As construed today, the requirements of subsections .031(a) and .031(g) are parallel.11 When the police officer on the scene can make the probable cause determinations required by Schmerber under subsection (á) as to crimes (a) applies to, he can administer a breath test. There is no reason to require more when the officer makes the same determinations in a case arising under subsection (g) as to crimes to which that subsection applies.
Today’s opinion holds that the police officer who tested Blank had probable cause to believe that she had just been involved in a motor vehicle accident causing death, that she had committed a crime, and that a breath test for alcohol would produce relevant evidence. I agree with these conclusions and believe that since they parallel the constitutionally required elements for a search under subsection .031(a) we should conclude, as in cases arising under .031(a), that exigent circumstances sufficient to justify the breath test that was given were present. As the Fourth Circuit stated in United States v. Reid:
Society-has a recognized interest in protecting its citizens from drunk drivers. Breathalyzer tests cause a lesser intrusion than blood tests. Time is of the essence when testing for alcohol in the bloodstream. The combination of these factors sets out exigent circumstances which are sufficient to require that the police be allowed to test drunk drivers without first having to obtain a warrant.[12]
For these reasons, I conclude that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement has been satisfied and would therefore remand this case with instructions to reinstate Blank’s conviction.

. Authorities in addition to those set out in footnote 44 of the opinion of the court indicating that alcohol creates a per se exigency include: State v. Cocio, 147 Ariz. 277, 709 P.2d 1336, 1345 (1985) (evanescent nature of alcohol in defendant's ■ blood stream is exigent circumstance since alcohol in a suspect's blood is certain to disappear); People v. Ritchie, 130 Cal.App.3d 455, 458, 181 Cal.Rptr. 773 (Cal.App.1982) (“In *165intoxication by alcohol, the special factor that the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to diminish shortly after its consumption triggers the warrantless intrusion into the body.”); State v. Taylor, 12 Conn.App. 427, 531 A.2d 157, 160-61 (1987) (exigent circumstance consisting of dissipation of blood alcohol content justified breathalyzer tests); State v. Entrekin, 98 Hawai'i 221, 47 P.3d 336, 348 (2002) (exigent circumstances clearly present because alcohol dissipates from bloodstream); State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368, 775 P.2d 1210, 1212 (1989) ("[T]he destruction of the evidence by metabolism in the blood provides an inherent exigency which justifies the warrantless search.”); DeVaney v. State, 259 Ind. 483, 288 N.E.2d 732, 735 (1972) (exigent circumstances present since the evidence of blood alcohol content "might soon disappear during the time necessary to obtain the warrant”); State v. Baker, 502 A.2d 489, 493 (Me.1985) ("The bodily process that eliminates alcohol also provides exigent circumstances obviating the need for a warrant prior to administering a blood test.”); State v. Lerette, 858 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Mo.App.1993) (exigent circumstances exist because "the percentage of alcohol in the bloodstream diminishes with time” and "the delay caused by having to obtain a warrant might result in the destruction of evidence”); Commonwealth v. Anderl, 329 Pa.Super. 69, 477 A.2d 1356, 1364 (1984) ("[T]he warrantless seizure of the appellant’s alcohol-laden breath is valid either as a search incident to arrest or a search necessitated by exigent circumstances; i.e., the evanescent nature of the alcohol in appellee's [sic] bloodstream.”); State v. Humphreys, 70 S.W.3d 752, 760-61 (Tenn.Crim.App.2001) ("Based upon the fact that evidence of blood alcohol content begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops, a compulsory breath or blood test, taken with or without the consent of the donor, falls within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.”); Aliff v. State, 627 S.W.2d 166, 170 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (because "alcohol in blood is quickly consumed and the evidence would be lost forever,” the warrantless taking of blood does not violate the Fourth Amendment); Tipton v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 370, 444 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1994) (”[E]xigent circumstances existed due to the dissipating nature of alcohol in the blood.”); Bennett v. Coffman, 178 W.Va. 500, 361 S.E.2d 465, 469 (1987) overruled on other grounds by State v. Chase Securities, Inc., 188 W.Va. 356, 424 S.E.2d 591 (1992) (Warrantless administration of blood-alcohol test did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights based on "destruction of evidence” exception to the warrant requirement).

. 592 P.2d 1187 (Alaska 1979).

. Id. at 1192.

. 558 P.2d 636 (Alaska 1977).

. Geber, 592 P.2d at 1191 (quoting Blue, 558 P.2d at 642).

. Id.

. In some other circumstances the presence of exigent circumstances is also analyzed categorically, rather than on a case-by-case basis. When an arrest is made and a search for evidence is conducted, the justification for the search is exigent circumstances, because otherwise the person arrested might destroy or dispose of the evidence. McCoy v. State, 491 P.2d 127, 135-37 (Alaska 1971); Hinkel v. Municipality of Anchorage, 618 P.2d 1069, 1070 (Alaska 1980) (recognizing "the two reasons justifying searches incident to arrests, protecting the arresting officer and preventing the destruction of evidence”). When, in the course of such a search, a closed container is found on the person arrested, the container .may be opened without a warrant. Id. at 1070; Middleton v. State, 577 P.2d 1050, 1055 (Alaska 1978); McCoy, 491 P.2d at 139. This is so even though it would be possible for the police to simply take the container from the person— thus removing the exigency of possible destruction of evidence — and seek a warrant to search the container. Hinkel, 618 P.2d at 1070 (recognizing that "it is not strictly necessary to open a closed container found on the person of one who is arrested in order to protect the arresting officer from the use of a hidden weapon or to prevent the destruction of evidence. These goals can ordinarily be áccomplished simply by seizing the container and removing it from the reach of the arrestee.").

. AS 28.35.031(a) is similar to "implied consent" statutes that' exist in most other states. It has been in existence for more than 34 years, see ch. 83, § 1, SLA 1969, and has received judicial approval. See Burnett v. Anchorage, 678 P.2d 1364, 1372 (Alaska App.1984) (Bryner, C.J., concurring); Burnett v. Municipality of Anchorage, 806 F.2d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir.1986). Similar "implied consent" statutes have "almost uniformly withstood various constitutional attacks.” State v. Moore, 79 Wash.2d 51, 483 P.2d 630, 632 (1971) (en banc); see e.g., Kellum v. Thorneycroft ex rel. Arizona Highway Dep't Motor Vehicle Div., 133 Ariz. 115, 649 P.2d 994, 995-96 (Ariz.App.1982); Spurlock v. Dep’t Motor Vehicles, 1 Cal. App.3d 821, 830, 82 Cal.Rptr. 42 (1969); People v. Brown, 174 Colo. 513, 485 P.2d 500 (1971) (en banc); Morrow v. State, 303 A.2d 633, 635 (Del. 1973); People v. Farr, 63 Ill.2d 209, 347 N.E.2d 146, 149 (1976); Newman v. Stinson, 489 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Ky.1972); State v. Manley, 189 Neb. 415, 202 N.W.2d 831, 833 (1972); Anderson v. MacDuff, 208 Misc. 271, 143 N.Y.S.2d 257, 259 (N.Y.Sup.1955); State v. Starnes, 21 Ohio St.2d 38, 254 N.E.2d 675, 678-80 (1970); Winter v. Mayberry, 533 P.2d 968, 969 (Okla.1975); Haag v. Commonwealth, 66 Pa.Cmwlth. 249, 443 A.2d 888, 889 (1982); State v. Brean, 136 Vt. 147, 385 A.2d 1085, 1088 (1978).

.AS 28.35.031(a) provides in relevant part:
A person who operates or drives a motor vehicle in this state ... shall be considered to have given consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath for the purpose of determining the alcohol content of the person’s blood or breath if lawfully arrested for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was operating or driving a motor vehicle ... while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.... The test or tests shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that the person was operating or driving a motor vehicle ... in this state while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage ....
AS 28.35.031(g) provides:
A person who operates or- drives a motor vehicle in this state shall be considered to have given consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath and blood and shall be considered to have given consent to a chemical test or tests of the person’s blood and urine for the purpose of determining the presence of controlled substances in the person’s blood and urine if the person is involved in a motor vehicle accident that causes death or serious *167physical injury to another person. The test or tests may be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that the person was operating or driving a motor vehicle in this state that was involved in an accident causing death or serious physical injury to another person.

. 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966).

. See Op. at 162-163.

. 929 F.2d 990, 994 (4th Cir.1991).