 |
Court RulingsCourt's Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Suppress BAC (ICW) KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF WASHINGTON VS. CHARLES LEE BOSS,
The defendants in the above-entitled cases are moving for suppression of the breath test results on the grounds that the Implied Consent Warnings that they received at the time of arrest were misleading. Each of the defendants received warnings which complied with the statute, RCW 46.20.308*1 _______________________________________________________ The purpose of the Implied Consent Warnings is to provide defendants arrested for DUI the opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision about whether or not to refuse the breath test. There is no requirement that the warnings given must strictly mirror the language of the statute so long as the warnings given are an accurate statement of the law. Warnings which are inaccurate or misleading contravene the purpose of the implied consent warning and require suppression of the test results. Pattison vs. DOL, 112 Wn.App 670, 50 P.Sd 295 (2002). In Pattison, the State Patrol modified the statutory language of RCW 46.20.308(2) and developed an implied consent warning form that advised all drivers, “regardless of their age,” that their driving privileges would be suspended if they were convicted of DUI or Physical Control. The statute in effect then, as now, only stated the convictions would result in suspension penalties for drivers under age 21. Nonetheless, the form was upheld as an accurate statement of the law. 112 Wn.App at 675. The warnings that were given to the defendants here complied with the directives of the statute. Nevertheless, the warnings were misleading, By expressly stating that drivers under age 21 would have their licenses suspended or revoked upon a conviction for DUI or Physical Control, the warnings imply that no such result will befall drivers over age 21. Regrettably, this is not accurate. Furthermore, affirmatively advising drivers under age 21 that they will lose their license upon conviction, but failing to similarly warn drivers over age 21 “is less accurate than saying nothing on that proposition.” State v. Bartels, 112 Wn.2d 882, 888 (1989). The state argues that even if the warnings did not provide complete warnings to those drivers over age 21, the error was harmless for any defendant who ultimately chose to take the breath test with a resulting breath test reading over .08. A breath reading of .08 or above will result in the suspension of the defendant’s license anyway. This court previously agreed with that argument. *2 However, in a criminal case, if the warnings are not accurate, the burden shifts to the State to prove that the error is harmless. The court cannot simply presume that an error is harmless based on what actions the defendant subsequently took after receiving the erroneous warnings. In Bartels, it was up to the State to establish whether a defendant had the financial ability to pay for additional tests “at [his] own expense.” If the State could establish that the defendant had the ability to pay, the erroneous warnings would be “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” and the results admitted. If not, the test results would be suppressed. 112 Wn.2d at 890. _____________________________________________________
Misleading warnings are fundamentally unfair and deny defendants their rights to substantive due process. Unless the State can establish that the defendants were not misled by the inaccurate warnings, suppression is the appropriate remedy. Dated this 4th day of June, 2007 |
|
