Court Opinion

ID: 9587042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:17:33.364684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:00.078686
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority concludes that the officer had probable cause to have Woolery’s blood tested. A major part of the evidence on which the majority relies in reaching this conclusion is “the treating physician’s opinion of intoxication.” I am unable to concur with the majority’s conclusion, because the record does not indicate that the officer was informed by the treating physician of this opinion.
It is true that the physician testified at trial that he was of the opinion Woolery was intoxicated. However, he did not testify, even at trial, that he told the officer of this opinion. The officer did not indicate in his report that the physician had informed him that in his opinion Woolery was intoxicated, nor did he include this in his testimony at trial. The trial court did not refer to the physician’s opinion as one of the circumstances it took into account in concluding that the officer had probable cause to order a test of Woolery’s blood.
Without proof that the physician informed the officer of his opinion that Woolery was intoxicated, in my view there is not sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause. I would reverse on this ground.