458 P.3d 372
N.M.2018Background
- Early morning traffic stop led to Chakerian’s arrest for DWI after officer detected alcohol and conducted field investigation.
- Breath testing: machine malfunctioned at first location; officer later obtained two Intoxilyzer readings of .12 and .11 at a different facility and recorded them on a breath card.
- At the Metropolitan Detention Center, Chakerian requested an independent chemical test; officer provided a phone, phone directory, and pen for ~10–30 minutes. Chakerian did not place any calls and later told the officer he was finished.
- Chakerian moved to suppress the breath-card results for denial of the statutory right to arrange an independent test under NMSA 1978 § 66-8-109(B). Trial court admitted the evidence and convicted; district court affirmed.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding § 66-8-109(B) requires law enforcement to “meaningfully cooperate” with an arrestee seeking an independent test.
- New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the statute imposes an affirmative duty on police beyond advising and providing an opportunity to arrange a test, and whether Chakerian received a reasonable opportunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Chakerian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 66-8-109(B) impose an affirmative duty on police to "meaningfully cooperate" in arranging an independent test beyond advising and providing an opportunity? | Statute only requires advising arrestee of the right and providing an opportunity to arrange the test; courts must apply plain statutory text. | The right is a due-process protection; police must meaningfully cooperate so the opportunity is effective. | No. § 66-8-109(B) requires advising and providing the means to arrange a test (e.g., phone access), but does not require further affirmative assistance. |
| Did Officer Aragon deny Chakerian a reasonable opportunity to arrange an independent test? | Officer provided phone, directory, and time; no denial. | Officer’s minimal assistance in early morning was insufficient; opportunity was not meaningful. | No. Fifteen–twenty minutes with phone and directory, without obstruction, satisfied the statutory “reasonable opportunity.” |
| Are police required to transport or otherwise facilitate the independent test (e.g., find a qualified person)? | Not required by statute. | Such assistance is necessary for a meaningful opportunity. | Not required; statute does not compel police to procure, transport, or otherwise facilitate the test. |
| Does the statute specify sanctions for noncompliance by police? | Absent in the text; State argued Court of Appeals erred to allow sanctioning. | Court of Appeals allowed remand to determine sanction. | Court did not decide sanctions; because it found no statutory violation, it declined to address appropriate remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fugere v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, Motor Vehicle Div., 897 P.2d 216 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (authority on officer’s selection of initial chemical test and related statutory framework)
- State v. Jones, 964 P.2d 117 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (New Mexico case holding arrestee entitled to reasonable opportunity and telephone access to arrange independent test)
- Schulz v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 760 N.W.2d 331 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (holding officer need only provide telephone; no obligation to assist further)
- State v. Jasa, 901 N.W.2d 315 (Neb. 2017) (police not required to assist beyond allowing telephone calls)
- Schroeder v. State, Dept. of Motor Vehicles and Pub. Safety, 772 P.2d 1278 (Nev. 1989) (police must not hinder attempts but need not assist)
- State v. Tompkins, 795 N.W.2d 351 (N.D. 2011) (officer has no duty to obtain independent test but must not interfere with reasonable requests)
- State v. McNichols, 906 P.2d 329 (Wash. 1995) (en banc) (similar holding limiting police duties after arrestee requests independent testing)