353 P.3d 355
Alaska Ct. App.2015Background
- Velarde was convicted of felony DUI, DWLS, failing to stop for an officer, and resisting arrest.
- During DUI processing, Trooper Stariha advised Velarde of an independent chemical test option and offered to transport him for a blood test at government expense.
- Velarde initially contemplated an independent test but ultimately declined after questions about its scope.
- The suppression motion claimed the trooper interfered with Velarde’s statutory/constitutional right to an independent test by explaining only a blood test option.
- The trial court denied the motion, and Velarde then challenged the breath-test admission and his resisting-arrest conviction on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trooper interfere with Velarde’s right to an independent chemical test? | Velarde argues the officer’s incomplete explanation violated his rights. | Velarde’s right was satisfied by offering a blood test and assistance to obtain it. | No interference; offer complied with law. |
| Was there sufficient evidence Velarde used force to resist arrest? | Velarde asserts no force directed at officers. | Velarde actively struggled and resisted, with officers forcefully restraining him. | Sufficient evidence of force to sustain resisting-arrest conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gundersen v. Anchorage, 792 P.2d 673 (Alaska 1990) (statutory right to independent test codified; blood test offer can satisfy constitutional right)
- Fallon v. State, 221 P.3d 1016 (Alaska App. 2010) (resisting arrest sufficient when active struggle against arresting officers)
- Eide v. State, 168 P.3d 499 (Alaska App. 2007) (discusses resisting arrest standards (concurring))
- Collins v. State, 977 P.2d 741 (Alaska App. 1999) (principles on resisting arrest standard)
- Snyder v. State, 930 P.2d 1274 (Alaska 1996) (context for independent test rights)