Officer allowed to request second chemical test

Despite a dispute as to whether or not a man refused to take a chemical breath test, an appellate court found he did refuse to take a second chemical test, which is cause for revocation of his driver's license.

Samuel W. Baldridge was arrested after being stopped for failing to dim his lights for oncoming traffic. When the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed Baldridge appeared to be intoxicated. Baldridge denied having anything to drink, but admitted he had smoked marijuana earlier in the evening. Baldridge failed three field sobriety tests, and the officer discovered Baldridge had a prior alcohol-related license suspension.

Baldridge was arrested and read the implied consent law before the officer informed him he would be administering chemical tests of his breath and urine. While taking the breath test, the officer felt Baldridge was intentionally taking the test incorrectly. The Breathalyzer machine did not register a result the first two times Baldridge blew into the machine. A third attempt registered .015 percent blood alcohol content, although the officer felt even the third attempt was not done properly, and marked that Baldridge had refused the test on the Alcohol Influence Report.

The officer then requested Baldridge submit to the chemical urine test. Baldridge argued the officer could not, by law, administer more than one test. The officer explained to Baldridge that Section 577.020.2, RSMo. 2000, allows an officer to administer up to two chemical tests for blood alcohol content. Baldridge still insisted the officer could not administer the second test and said he would not take the test, so the officer counted it as a refusal as well.

The Circuit Court of Cass County did not agree that Baldridge had refused the breath test, because the machine did register a result on the third attempt. The Court of Appeals for the Western District agreed, but found the circuit court did not consider Baldridge's refusal of the urine test when it reinstated his driver's license, and reversed the lower court's decision.

The circuit court had also found that the officer had failed to reread the implied consent warning before requesting the second chemical test, although he had read the warning prior to administering the breath test.

"The implied consent law specifically permits two tests and nothing in the plain language of section 577.041 requires that the officer read the implied consent warning again prior to requesting a second test," Judge Patricia Breckenridge wrote.

The appellate court remanded the lower court's directed verdict to allow Baldridge to present evidence against the Director of Revenue's prima facie case.

Samuel W. Baldridge, respondent v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, appellant; case number WD60252; August 20.

Copyright 2002 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.