AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• An officer arrested the Defendant for DWI after pulling him over for speeding and detecting alcohol. At the police station, the Defendant was informed of his right to an independent chemical test, in addition to the police-administered breath test, which showed alcohol concentrations of .12 and .11. The Defendant requested an additional test at the Metropolitan Detention Center, was provided with a phone and directory but did not make any calls. He later argued he was not afforded a real opportunity for an independent test (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant of DWI and speeding, denying the motion to suppress the breath card despite acknowledging the Defendant might not have been truly afforded an opportunity for an independent test (para 5).
• District Court: Affirmed the DWI conviction, stating the Defendant failed to establish any prejudice from not obtaining an independent test (para 6).
• Court of Appeals: Reversed the conviction, holding that law enforcement must "meaningfully cooperate" with an arrestee's request for an independent test and remanded for determination of sanctions for the statutory violation (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner (State): Argued that the law only requires informing the arrestee of the right to arrange an independent test, without any additional obligation on law enforcement to facilitate this arrangement (para 11).
• Defendant-Respondent: Urged the Court to affirm the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the opportunity for an independent test must be meaningful and that police must cooperate with the arrestee's request for such a test (para 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether law enforcement denied the Defendant the right to an independent chemical test by only providing a phone and directory without further assistance (para 1).
• The extent of law enforcement's duty to facilitate an arrestee's request for an independent chemical test under Section 66-8-109(B) (paras 1-2).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming the metropolitan court convictions of DWI and speeding, and remanded for further proceedings (para 2).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Maes, J., with Nakamura, C.J., Chávez, Daniels, and Vigil, JJ., concurring, held that Section 66-8-109(B) requires law enforcement to inform an arrestee of the right to arrange for an independent test but does not impose a duty to assist in making such arrangements. The Court found that providing a phone and directory was sufficient to meet the statutory requirement and that the Defendant was not denied a reasonable opportunity to arrange for an independent test. The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals' interpretation that law enforcement must "meaningfully cooperate" with the arrestee's request for an independent test, stating that the statute only mandates that the arrestee be given the means to arrange for a test, without hindrance from law enforcement (paras 11-22).