Court Opinion

ID: 9678911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:35:46.726953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:08.905518
License: Public Domain

ABRAMSON, Justice,
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part:
I join completely in Chief Justice Min-ton’s dissent, sharing particularly his concern about the majority’s “startling departure” from precedent on the urinalysis issue and the resulting confusion for bench and bar. I write separately on this very important issue because I am compelled to underscore that the majority, as the Chief Justice notes, also depart from *151the record in this case. Indeed, they depart radically from the record. Most especially, what about Mark Travis?
Mark Travis is the paramedic who treated Burton at the scene. The Commonwealth’s brief describes his testimony (accurately in my view, having watched the videotape) as follows:
Travis treated Appellant at the scene. Travis noticed that Appellant appeared to be trapped in the vehicle, but had no life-threatening injuries. Travis told Appellant to remain calm and to not move. Appellant, however, continued to jerk and pull, trying to get himself out of the vehicle. Travis stated Appellant refused to follow his directions.
Despite being implored to remain still, Appellant eventually extricated himself from the vehicle. Outside the vehicle, Travis assessed Appellant and noticed Appellant had a compound fracture of his arm. Even though his arm was broken and flopped from side to side, Appellant continually informed Travis that he was okay.
Travis walked Appellant across the road to the ambulance for further care. While Travis continued to try and provide medical attention to Appellant, Appellant would walk away, cross the road, return to his car, and then walk back to the ambulance. When a second ambulance arrived, Travis had to pull Appellant from its path to keep him from being hit.
Travis finally got Appellant into the ambulance. At one point, Appellant stated he had hit a tree; later Appellant stated he did not know what happened. Appellant then stated someone else was in the car with him. Appellant’s car was searched, but no one else was found.
Inside the ambulance, Travis took Appellant’s vital signs. Appellant’s blood pressure was 148/78, his pulse was regular at 118 beats per minute, his respira-tions were twenty-six per minute, and his oxygen blood content was ninety-five percent. Approximately thirty minutes later, Appellant’s blood pressure was 138/88, his pulse was 103 beats per minute, his respirations were twenty-two per minute, and his oxygen blood content was one hundred percent.
Travis suspected Appellant was under the influence. Appellant did not respond like a person who was in shock normally responded. Travis explained that a person who was in shock would normally calm down and cooperate after he talked to that person. Appellant, however, did not calm down and did not cooperate with emergency personnel.
[[Image here]]
Travis transported Appellant to Parkway Regional Hospital. There, Appellant continued to be uncooperative and combative with hospital personnel. Appellant initially refused to provide the emergency room nurse with a urine sample, but later agreed when Travis and the nurse informed Appellant they would put a catheter in him.
Commonwealth’s Brief at pp. 2-4 (footnote and 25 citations to the record omitted).
This is the testimony of the paramedic charged with Burton’s care immediately following the collision until such time as emergency room personnel assumed those duties. The majority acknowledge Travis’s struggles with the combative Burton at the scene but reduce Travis’s testimony about his observations and belief in Burton’s impaired state to a footnote: “One paramedic stated he ‘suspected’ it [impairment], but conceded at trial he did not *152write it down in the report as required.” Since when did an error in paperwork, assuming it was error,15 preclude relevant testimony?
What about Mark Travis? His sworn testimony has been ignored, or at the very least minimized, because it does not fit into the majority’s thesis that the Commonwealth was “without supporting evidence” for its position that Burton was impaired by drugs. If Burton’s behavior and Travis’s trained observations (in addition to the other evidence referenced by Chief Justice Minton) do not satisfy the majority, I am left with the impression that their new approach will require one of three things, ie. a confession of immediately pri- or drug use by the defendant, testimony from a credible (indeed, credible in this Court’s view) witness who saw such immediately prior usage, or blood tests that substantiate the urinalysis. The first two are unlikely in most cases so immediate blood tests must become the norm in order to prosecute impaired drivers who choose drugs as opposed to alcohol.
MINTON, C.J.; and CUNNINGHAM, J., join this opinion.

. Travis acknowledged that he did not record his observations regarding impairment, noting the forms were "new" and no one was really familiar with them at the time. He did not describe this information "as required” nor are we cited to any other evidence which would suggest it was error to omit the observation.