Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Police officers stopped D's car after they saw him fail to stop at a stop sign. The officers asked D for his driver's license and asked him to get out of the car. As he left the car, D staggered and fell against the car to support himself. The officers smelled alcohol on his breath. D did not have a driver's license and informed the officers that it was revoked after a previous driving-while-intoxicated conviction. The officers asked D to touch his finger to his nose and to walk a straight line. When D failed these field sobriety tests, he was placed under arrest and read his Miranda rights. D acknowledged that he understood his rights and agreed to talk without a lawyer present. The officers then asked D to submit to a blood-alcohol test and warned him that he could lose his license if he refused. D refused to take the test, stating 'I'm too drunk, I won't pass the test.' The officers again read the request to submit to a test, and then took D to the police station, where they read the request to submit a third time. D continued to refuse to take the test, again saying he was too drunk to pass it. South Dakota law specifically declares that refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test 'may be admissible into evidence at the trial.' D sought to suppress all evidence of his refusal to take the blood-alcohol test. The Circuit Court granted the suppression motion for three reasons: the South Dakota statute allowing evidence of refusal violated D's federal constitutional rights; the officers failed to advise D that the refusal could be used against him at trial; and the refusal was irrelevant to the issues before the court. The State appealed from the entire order. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the suppression of the act of refusal on the grounds that the statute violated the federal and state privilege against self-incrimination. The refusal was a communicative act involving respondent's testimonial capacities and that the State compelled this communication by forcing D '`to choose between submitting to a perhaps unpleasant examination and producing testimonial evidence against himself,''
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co