Fitzgerald v. People
394 P.3d 671
Colo.2017Background
- Shortly after midnight, Officer Todis stopped Daniel Fitzgerald for erratic driving and smelled alcohol; Fitzgerald admitted drinking one beer and declined field sobriety maneuvers.
- Officer arrested Fitzgerald, gave Colorado express-consent advisals (oral and written), and Fitzgerald refused chemical testing (blood or breath) at the station.
- Prosecutor introduced Fitzgerald’s refusal at trial as consciousness-of-guilt; jury convicted him of DWAI (a lesser-included offense of DUI).
- Fitzgerald moved in limine to exclude refusal evidence, arguing it penalized his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches; trial court denied the motion.
- The district court affirmed, holding expressed-consent is statutory (not constitutional) and the statute permits admission of refusal evidence; the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting a defendant’s refusal to submit to warrantless chemical testing violates the Fourth Amendment by penalizing the exercise of the right to be free from unreasonable searches | Fitzgerald: Using refusal as evidence penalizes his Fourth Amendment right because blood/breath tests are searches and admitting refusal burdens that right | Prosecution: Colorado’s Expressed Consent Statute authorizes admission; refusal is a statutory (not constitutional) choice and its admission does not make the search ‘unreasonable’ | The court held admission of refusal evidence under Colorado’s statute does not violate the Fourth Amendment and affirmed the conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (blood and breath tests are searches implicating bodily integrity)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (distinguishing breath and blood tests for warrantless searches and addressing criminal penalties for refusal)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (no per se exigency for warrantless blood draws due to alcohol dissipation)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (compelled blood test results are admissible physical evidence under the Fifth Amendment)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) (admission of refusal evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment; Griffin rule inapplicable where no constitutional right to refuse testing)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (prosecution/commentary drawing adverse inference from defendant’s silence violates Fifth Amendment)
- Apodaca v. People, 712 P.2d 467 (Colo. 1985) (Colorado application of Griffin principles to other constitutional-rights contexts)
- Cox v. People, 735 P.2d 153 (Colo. 1987) (admission of refusal evidence at DUI trial does not violate state self-incrimination or due process guarantees)