Court Opinion

ID: 9573033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:46:55.724554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:09.175685
License: Public Domain

Munson, J.
(dissenting) — Mr. Cooper does not contend Trooper Hughes failed to give the proper statutory warning under RCW 46.20.308(2). The contention is that in the conversation subsequent to the warnings, Trooper Hughes told him that he would lose his license "probably for at least a year, depending upon his driving record, maybe two".
RCW 46.20.311(2) provides in part:
(c) . . . the expiration of two years for persons convicted of vehicular homicide; (d) . . . the expiration of one year in cases of revocation for the first refusal within five years . . . (e) . . . the expiration of two years in cases of revocation for the second refusal within five years to submit to a chemical test under RCW 46.20.308; . . .
Mr. Cooper contends the "probably for at least a year" was misleading in that it could have meant less than 1 year. There is no statement in the stipulation what Mr. Cooper actually thought.
It is the word "probably" which precipitates the issue in this case. Probable is defined as "that reasonably and fairly convincingly establishes something as true, factual, or possible but not with absolute conclusiveness". Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1806 (1986).
To me, the "probably" in Trooper Hughes' statement relates to the 2 years since there was a possibility that, depending upon Mr. Cooper's driving record, he could have lost his license for 2 years. RCW 46.20.311(2)(c) and (e). Thus, I understand Trooper Hughes' conversation to mean *530that Mr. Cooper would lose his license for 1 year and, depending upon his record, possibly 2.
I would affirm.