Kristy Burnell v. State of Indiana, 2016 Ind. LEXIS 581

Officer observed Kristy Burnell commit traffic violations, detected alcohol odor, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and poor balance; she failed three field sobriety tests.
Officer offered a chemical test, warned that refusal would suspend driving privileges; Burnell asked to speak to her police-officer uncle and said, "yeah, I guess I gotta can take it," then stepped away from the officer.
Officer grabbed her arm; she resisted contact, was handcuffed, and arrested; the officer submitted a probable-cause affidavit claiming Burnell refused the chemical test.
The Bureau of Motor Vehicles administratively suspended Burnell's license and she sought judicial review challenging that suspension on the ground she had not refused the test.
Trial court viewed in-car video, found Burnell's conduct equivocal and sufficient to constitute a refusal; Court of Appeals affirmed in a divided decision; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Burnell "refused" a chemical test under Indiana's implied-consent statute	Officer/State: Burnell's stepping away and conduct amounted to a refusal even without saying "no"	Burnell: She never verbally refused and her words showed willingness; conduct did not constitute refusal	A refusal occurs when a reasonable officer could believe the motorist was capable of refusing and manifested an unwillingness; Burnell's conduct justified suspension
Standard for deciding refusal based on conduct	State: Conduct can establish refusal where motorist was clearly asked and failed to cooperate	Burnell: Court should require clearer, unambiguous refusal	Court rejected categorical rule requiring unqualified assent; adopts a totality-of-circumstances reasonable-officer test
Burden of proof on judicial review of administrative suspension	State: Administrative finding entitled to deference; petitioner must prove by preponderance	Burnell: Evidence insufficient as a matter of law	Because Burnell appealed a negative judgment, she failed to show evidence compels a different conclusion; suspension affirmed
Whether categorical rule "anything short of unqualified assent = refusal" should apply	Some appellate concurrence urged categorical rule to simplify determinations	Burnell: favored narrower reading requiring clearer proof of refusal	Court declined categorical rule due to problems (language barriers, hearing impairments) and adopted case-by-case approach

Smith v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 790 N.E.2d 460 (Ind. 2003) (context on drunk driving harms and state interest)
South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) (recognition of societal harms from drunk driving)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (discussion of implied-consent laws and chemical testing)
Reynolds v. State, 698 N.E.2d 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (conduct can constitute refusal when adequate breath samples not provided)
Thacker v. State, 441 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (violent, resisting conduct held to be refusal despite verbal consent)
Jaremczuk v. State, 380 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978) (pretended breath into mouthpiece constituted refusal)
Mayo v. Moore, 527 N.W.2d 257 (N.D. 1995) (refusal found where motorist did not respond to offer)
Winter v. Peterson, 305 N.W.2d 803 (Neb. 1981) (adopting conduct-based refusal standard)
Campbell v. Super. Ct. In & For Maricopa Cty., 479 P.2d 685 (Ariz. 1971) (similar conduct-based approach)