102 N.E.3d 1034
Court for the Trial of Impeach...2018Background
- Defendant was arrested for suspected DWI in 2014 and, more than two hours after arrest, was asked whether he would take a breath test; he initially said "No."
- After the officer read the Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 refusal warnings (stating license suspension/revocation and that the refusal could be used in court), defendant then consented and provided a breath sample showing BAC over the legal limit.
- Defendant moved to suppress the videotape, test results, and statements, arguing the test was requested after the two-hour window for "deemed consent" and that the warnings rendered his consent involuntary.
- Criminal Court and the Appellate Term suppressed the refusal and test results, concluding the warnings (given after two hours) were coercive and inaccurate as to admissibility of a post-two-hour refusal.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: because the test was administered after two hours and the refusal-warning about admissibility at trial was legally inaccurate, defendant’s consent was involuntary and results were suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | People's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1194's two-hour deemed-consent limit bars admission of breath test results taken after two hours absent voluntary consent | Two-hour limit does not bar admission when consent is given; warnings merely inform of consequences and DMV policy permits suspension after two hours | Test administered after two hours cannot rely on deemed consent; results admissible only if consent is voluntary | Test outside two hours not admissible under deemed-consent; admissible only if consent is voluntary (Atkins) |
| Whether refusal-warnings given after two hours stating a refusal may be used as evidence at trial were legally accurate | Warnings inform drivers of real consequences; DMV policy allows suspension after two hours; warnings not coercive | Warning that refusal could be used at trial after two hours was legally inaccurate and coercive | Warning that refusal would be admissible at trial was legally inaccurate as matter of law when given after two hours and therefore inappropriate |
| Whether defendant’s post-warning consent was voluntary | Consent was express and voluntary despite initial refusal and warnings | Consent was induced by inaccurate/coercive warnings and thus involuntary | Consent was involuntary because it followed an inaccurate warning about admissibility of refusal evidence |
| Whether evidence of an initial refusal (given after two hours) was admissible | Refusal evidence admissible if warnings given and defendant persisted in refusal | Because two-hour limit applies, refusal after two hours is not a "refusal" under §1194(2)(f) and must be suppressed | Evidence of refusal after two hours does not fall within §1194(2)(f); suppression proper (defendant did not persist in refusal) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Atkins, 85 N.Y.2d 1007 (N.Y. 1995) (test results after two hours admissible only if consent is express and voluntary)
- People v. Washington, 23 N.Y.3d 228 (N.Y. 2014) (describing statutory scheme and purpose of §1194 deemed-consent warnings)
- People v. Smith, 18 N.Y.3d 544 (N.Y. 2012) (section 1194 procedural/admissibility rules and interplay with consent)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (U.S. 2016) (Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrest)
- People v. Kates, 53 N.Y.2d 591 (N.Y. 1981) (legislative history and purpose of deemed consent explained)
- People v. Paddock, 29 N.Y.2d 504 (N.Y. 1971) (historical rule that refusal evidence was inadmissible prior to statutory amendment)
- People v. Finnegan, 85 N.Y.2d 53 (N.Y. 1995) (two-hour limitation applies to tests performed under deemed-consent provision)
- People v. McGrath, 73 N.Y.2d 826 (N.Y. 1988) (two-hour rule does not apply to court-ordered compulsory tests)
- People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100 (N.Y. 1978) (no constitutional right to refuse chemical tests; statutory scheme discussed)