United States v. Sean Harrington
749 F.3d 825
9th Cir.2014Background
- On June 10, 2011, a federal park ranger found Harrington alone in a running car inside Yosemite National Park, suspected him of DUI, and arrested him after he refused field sobriety tests.
- At the station Harrington twice received an incorrect California admonition (read three times total) that implied refusal only carried administrative license consequences and possible consequences only if later convicted of DUI; he was not read the federal admonition nor told federal consequences and was denied counsel.
- Under federal law (applicable in national parks), refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test is itself a misdemeanor independent of any DUI conviction and carries up to six months’ jail and/or a fine; the California admonition misstated this.
- Harrington was prosecuted in federal court; all other related DUI counts were dropped or pleaded, leaving only the refusal charge, for which a magistrate judge convicted him and sentenced him to jail time (120 days, 90 suspended) and probation.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the rangers’ repeated misstatement of the legal consequences of refusal violated Harrington’s Fifth Amendment due process rights and whether the conviction should be reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misreading a state (California) admonition instead of the applicable federal admonition violated due process | Harrington: the rangers’ repeated, affirmative misstatement misled him about criminal consequences and deprived him of fundamental fairness, risking erroneous loss of liberty | Government: failure to give the correct warning or to advise of all consequences does not automatically violate due process (relying on Neville) | Reversed: due process violated where admonition affirmatively misled about whether refusal is a freestanding crime |
| Whether Mathews v. Eldridge balancing favors defendant when admonition is misleading | Harrington: liberty interest (incarceration) is substantial; misleading admonition created risk of erroneous deprivation; little governmental interest in using wrong admonition | Government: no strong interest shown for using California admonition; argued Neville controls | Court: Mathews factors tip to Harrington; fundamental unfairness warrants reversal |
| Whether South Dakota v. Neville controls and bars relief for failure to warn about use of refusal at trial | Government: Neville permits conviction despite failure to disclose certain consequences | Harrington: Neville distinguished because here the warning was affirmatively misleading (not merely incomplete) and warned that refusal was not a crime when it was | Court: Neville distinguished; not controlling because warning was misleading and refusal was a separate criminal offense |
| Whether prior circuit precedent (Roberts v. Maine) supports relief | Harrington: Roberts supports reversal where misleading or incomplete admonition led to criminal punishment for refusal | Government: attempted distinction on facts and harms | Court: Roberts analogous and supports finding of due process violation; Harrington’s case is even stronger |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (procedural due process balancing test governs)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (failure to warn about evidentiary use of refusal does not always violate due process)
- Roberts v. Maine, 48 F.3d 1287 (1st Cir.) (misleading admonition about criminal consequences can violate due process)
- Buckingham v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 603 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.) (standard of de novo review for due process question)
- United States v. Batterjee, 361 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.) (government misconduct or misleading actions can render conviction unconstitutional)