Court Opinion

ID: 9547974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:55:28.490033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:18.814568
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Driver’s license suspension proceedings. The Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Charles S. Crookham, J., reversed order of Department of Motor Vehicles suspending driver’s license and the Department appealed. The Court of Appeals, reversed with in*317structions, 477 P.2d 237, and state petitioned for rehearing. The Court of Appeals, Langtry, J., held that finding that because plaintiff demanded that his attorney be present before he would take breathalyzer test, it could not be said that he had refused to take the test was adequate finding of fact under statute dealing with findings to be made by hearing officer on plaintiff’s contentions that police officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that plaintiff had been driving under influence of intoxicating liquor, that plaintiff had not refused to submit to breathalyzer test, that plaintiff was not properly informed of consequences of his refusal to submit to test and that plaintiff was not properly informed of his rights.
On respondent’s petition for rehearing filed December 23, 1970.
Nicholas D. Zafiratos, Astoria, for petition.
No appearance contra.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry, Foley, and Fort, Judges.
Rehearing denied.
*318LANGTBY, J.
In a petition for rehearing, inter alia, the defendant asserts that the trial court failed to make findings of fact under OBS 482.550(2). This section deals with findings to be made by the hearing officer.
However, the amended complaint on appeal to the circuit court from the suspension of driver’s license alleged: (1) that the police officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the plaintiff had been driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor; (2) that the plaintiff did not refuse to submit to the breathalyzer test; (3) that the plaintiff was not properly informed of the consequences “under OBS 483.992 to 482.560 [sic]” of his refusal to submit to the test, and (4) that the plaintiff was not properly informed of his rights as provided in OBS 483.638. These are substantially the same questions as those on which the hearing officer must make findings. At conclusion of the case, plaintiff’s counsel moved for “dismissal” on the basis of points (1) and (2). We do not know why plaintiff wanted to dismiss his own proceeding unless he misspoke. We assume he was moving for judgment favorable to his client. The court expressly rejected point (1). Point (2) was the basis of the court’s final decision, the appeal, and our reversal. When plaintiff moved to dismiss, the court observed that the green form (which was Exhibit I, and contained warnings of all the consequences and rights possibly referred to in points (3) and (4) of the complaint) was read to the plaintiff.
■ In the trial court’s letter opinion, dated five weeks after the hearing, only one finding was made; name*319ly, that because the plaintiff demanded that his attorney be present before he would take the breathalyzer test, it could not be said that he had refused to take the test. Our opinion reversed this finding, and we now adhere to that opinion. We think the record thus shows findings on all four contentions.
The petition for rehearing is denied.