Keyaunna Hurley v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. LEXIS 434
| Ind. | 2017Background
- Trooper stopped Keyaunna Hurley for a traffic violation, suspected intoxication, and she failed field sobriety tests.
- Hurley agreed to a chemical breath test on an Intox EC/IR II at the station; she provided three blows but the machine printed "Insufficient Sample."
- The trooper concluded Hurley had refused the test, did not offer a second test, signed the insufficiency report, and reported a refusal; the BMV suspended Hurley’s license for one year.
- Hurley sought judicial review arguing (1) the trooper failed to follow the Department of Toxicology’s breath-test protocol (so she could not legally have "refused") and (2) insufficient evidence supported a finding of refusal.
- The trial court and Court of Appeals upheld the suspension; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Hurley’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Breath‑Test Rule required offering a second breath test after an "Insufficient Sample" on the first test | 260 I.A.C. 2‑4‑2(b)(5) mandates performing an additional breath test when "Insufficient Sample" prints; officer had to offer a second test | The officer may record a refusal when the instrument shows "Insufficient Sample" if the subject is not cooperating; officer discretion allowed | Court held the Rule presumptively requires a second test unless the subject clearly manifests unwillingness to cooperate |
| Whether Hurley refused the chemical test so as to justify license suspension | Hurley was cooperative, never told to blow harder, had previously taken a portable test, and thus did not clearly manifest unwillingness—no basis to record a refusal | The trooper reasonably exercised discretion to conclude Hurley was refusing after three insufficient blows and properly recorded a refusal | Court held the record did not support a refusal finding; Hurley did not clearly manifest unwillingness, so suspension reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnell v. State, 56 N.E.3d 1146 (Ind. 2016) (standard for reversing negative judgment and definition of refusal context)
- Vetor v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1327 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (failure to comply with testing rules can negate a valid offer and thus a refusal)
- Steward v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1292 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (a test cannot be "refused" unless properly "offered")
- Upchurch v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (officer’s noncompliance with approved test procedures defeats a refusal finding)
- Jaremczuk v. State, 380 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978) (example of manifest noncooperation making refusal obvious)
- Hatch v. State, 378 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978) (defendant’s clear verbal unwillingness justified recording refusal)