249 P.3d 880
Idaho Ct. App.2011Background
- Cunningham was arrested for DUI and taken to jail for a BAC test; before testing, he received a written advisory and heard a recording outlining consequences of refusal under Idaho law.
- During questioning, the officer repeatedly stated incorrect consequences, including immediate, unconditional license suspension for refusal and that an independent test could only occur after bonding out.
- Cunningham refused the BAC test; the officer seized his license, issued a temporary permit, and Cunningham requested a show-cause hearing within seven days.
- The magistrate found the officer’s statements regarding the consequences were incorrect and reinstated Cunningham’s license; the district court reversed and suspended the license.
- On appeal, the Idaho Court of Appeals held that the officer’s incorrect statements rendered the advisory incomplete under I.C. § 18-8002(3) and vacated the suspension, reinstating Cunningham’s license.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer’s incorrect advisories void the statutory warning | Cunningham | State | Yes; incorrect statements rendered advisory incomplete |
| Whether Griffiths fifth ground applies when advisory is later supplemented | Cunningham | State | Yes; officer errors can sustain Griffiths ground despite complete advisory |
| Whether Kling controls over Head/Griffiths regarding causation of the refusal | Cunningham | State | Yes; officer failure to fully inform constitutes ground for relief |
| Whether the district court erred in suspending license despite magistrate’s finding | Cunningham | State | Yes; reversal vacates suspension and reinstates license |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Griffiths, 113 Idaho 364 (Idaho Supreme Court 1987) (set forth Griffiths grounds for reinstatement under I.C. § 18-8002)
- In re Beem, 119 Idaho 289 (Ct. App. 1991) (strict adherence to statutory language; erroneous advisory may fail grounds)
- In re Virgil, 126 Idaho 946 (Ct. App. 1995) (reaffirmed need for accurate advising; warnings must conform to statute)
- Kling, 150 Idaho 188 (Ct. App. 2010) (holds officer’s incorrect advisory information renders advisory incomplete; cannot rewrite Griffiths grounds)
- Head, 137 Idaho 1 (Idaho Supreme Court 2002) (cannot expand Griffiths grounds to include erroneous advising regarding consequences)