State v. Chelan County Dist. Court, 93098-8

Background

Early morning DUI stop: Deputy Morrison arrested Robert Bowie on suspicion of DUI after observing signs of impairment and incomplete field sobriety tests.
Bowie was read RCW 46.20.308 implied-consent warnings, signed the form, and initially agreed to a breath test.
A delay occurred (lip balm) and after the 15-minute observation the deputy asked Bowie to provide a "voluntary" sample; Bowie then refused.
State charged Bowie with DUI plus a refusal enhancement; Bowie moved to suppress evidence of his refusal, arguing the officer's use of "voluntary" was misleading and undermined a knowing decision.
Chelan County District Court suppressed the refusal evidence; Superior Court denied the State's writ of review petition under RCW 7.16.040; the State sought direct review in the Washington Supreme Court, which affirmed denial of the writ.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Bowie's Argument	Held
Whether superior court review by writ (RCW 7.16.040) was available to the State	Writ should lie to resolve tension in precedent about suppression for erroneous warnings	Writ not available; district court relied on existing precedent so no illegal action	Superior court correctly denied writ: RCW 7.16.040 prerequisites not met (no acting illegally)
Whether officer's description of the breath test as "voluntary" rendered the implied-consent warning inaccurate enough to require suppression as a matter of law	The "voluntary" descriptor was a minor, benign deviation and harmless	The word "voluntary" was potentially misleading and could undermine a knowing decision, requiring suppression	Majority: error was at most potentially misleading and not necessarily presumptively prejudicial; suppression decision relied on existing precedent so interlocutory writ unavailable
Whether minor deviations from statutory warning require defendant to prove prejudice	State: defendant should bear burden to show prejudice for minor errors	Bowie: any misleading understatement of consequences should trigger suppression or require State to prove harmlessness	Dissent (Gonzalez J.): for minor errors defendant must prove by preponderance that they were likely misled; major errors may trigger presumed prejudice
Whether this court should reach merits under discretionary review (RAP 2.3) despite superior court's correct denial of writ	State urged this Court to clarify law on suppression for warning errors	Bowie argued suppression proper and not reviewable interlocutorily	Majority declined to reach merits here because superior court correctly denied writ; dissent argued merits should be addressed under RAP 2.3(d)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Whitman County Dist. Court, 105 Wn.2d 278 (Wash. 1986) (erroneous implied-consent warnings can require automatic suppression)
State v. Turpin, 94 Wn.2d 820 (Wash. 1980) (misstated warnings may invalidate consent and warrant suppression)
City of Seattle v. Holifield, 170 Wn.2d 230 (Wash. 2010) (defines when a lower court is "acting illegally" for RCW 7.16.040 writs)
State v. Murray, 187 Wn.2d 115 (Wash. 2016) (recognizes minor variances permissible: warnings must not omit relevant portions, must accurately express them, and not be misleading)
State v. Bartels, 112 Wn.2d 882 (Wash. 1989) (presumed prejudice applied for certain misleading warnings affecting indigent defendants)
State v. Bostrom, 127 Wn.2d 580 (Wash. 1995) (requires strict adherence to statutory warning language to ensure knowing decision)
Commanda v. Cary, 143 Wn.2d 651 (Wash. 2001) (appellate court reviews whether superior court had authority to grant/deny writ before reaching merits)
Gonzales v. Dept. of Licensing, 112 Wn.2d 890 (Wash. 1989) (discusses when deviations from warnings are or are not misleading)
State v. Baird, 187 Wn.2d 210 (Wash. 2016) (discusses that motorists retain the right to refuse breath tests under implied-consent scheme)