Rask v. State
404 P.3d 1236
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Early morning accident: Rask drove into a pole and appeared impaired (slurred speech, disoriented); portable breath test at hospital read 0.00% BAC.
- Police obtained a warrant to draw Rask’s blood for suspected drug intoxication; before the warrant could be executed Rask left the hospital, was later arrested and taken to the station.
- During taped DUI processing, Officer Roberts misread the implied-consent form, telling Rask he was required to submit to a “chemical test of your breath or blood” and that refusal to submit to a chemical test could be a misdemeanor or felony.
- Officer Roberts also framed the breath test as a choice (while saying a blood draw was required by warrant); Rask expressed confusion and ultimately said he refused the Breathalyzer.
- Police later drew blood under the warrant; the state dropped the DUI charge after blood tests showed phenazepam (a sedative). Rask was convicted of felony refusal to submit to a breath test; he appealed claiming due process violation from misleading advisements.
Issues
| Issue | Rask's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the police advisement during DUI processing adequately informed Rask that refusal to submit to a breath test is a crime (due process notice requirement) | Advisement was objectively misleading because officer told him refusal applied to “breath or blood,” framed breath as optional, and failed to explain refusal to take a breath test is a criminal offense | Advisement was sufficient overall; later correct independent‑test advisement cured any earlier confusion | Reversed: advisement was misleading and inadequate; due process required clearer notice and clarification when refusal stems from confusion |
| Whether a later, correct advisement (given after the refusal was recorded) cured the earlier deficiency | Later advisement came too late and did not give Rask a renewed, meaningful opportunity to decide; Rask was incoherent by then | Later advisement cured the earlier error | Court held later advisement did not cure the defect because it occurred after the refusal was recorded and no renewed chance was offered |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless blood draws more intrusive than breath tests; implied‑consent blood tests cannot be compelled without a warrant absent exigency)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (dissipation of alcohol in blood alone does not create a per se exigency to bypass a warrant)
- Graham v. State, 633 P.2d 211 (Alaska 1981) (officer must clarify rights when a refusal appears based on confusion; refusal is a crime and officer must advise accordingly)
- Olson v. State, 260 P.3d 1056 (Alaska 2011) (discussing the complexity of breath‑test decisions and requirements for advisements)
- Copelin v. State, 659 P.2d 1206 (Alaska 1983) (arrestees have no legal right to refuse breath test but do have the power to refuse, impacting admissibility and consequences)