Court Opinion

ID: 9727931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:53:07.655935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:44.374592
License: Public Domain

*193MACK, Associate Judge,
concurring.
Under a statute repealed only a few months before appellant’s traffic accident, appellant was entitled to refuse to submit to any type of alcohol testing, and could choose instead to have his license suspended. D.C.Code §§ 40-502 (a), -505 (1981) (repealed 1982). It was only in accidents involving death or bodily injury — not the case here — that testing was mandatory under the old statute. D.C.Code § 40-502 (b). The new statute, which was not yet incorporated into the published D.C.Code at the time of appellant’s accident, eliminated this choice in all accident cases. Appellant’s attorney argues that he initially told his client not to take the breathalyzer test because he was unaware of the change in the law, and therefore believed that appellant could still choose to have his license suspended rather than undergo any form of testing. He further asserts, and government counsel seems to agree, that once the police explained the change in the law to him he counseled his client to take the breathalyzer test; and at that point the police refused the request and forced appellant to take a blood test.
If the record actually reflected that once the police explained the change in law to counsel, he advised his client to take the breathalyzer test, but the police then refused to administer it, I would be inclined to hold that appellant’s choice of the breathalyzer was a reasonable one under Schmerber v. California, 884 U.S. 757, 760 n. 4, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1830 n. 4, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and should have been honored. The record, however, reveals no causal connection between the explanation to counsel that the law had changed, and appellant’s request for the breathalyzer. Officer Buckholdt explained that he gave a copy of an implied consent form setting forth rights under the new act to counsel; but that even after counsel had read the form, counsel still advised his client to refuse the breathalyzer, and appellant did so. It was only when the police made it evident that they fully intended to administer a blood test — taking appellant out of the police station for transportation to the hospital — that counsel for appellant advised him to change his mind. Under these circumstances, the due process concerns outlined in the Schmerber footnote do not come into play. I therefore concur in the result reached by the majority.