Drunk Driving Cases
Alaska DWI Lawyer
Frederick T. Slone, Esq.

SAMPLE CASE NO. 13 - State v. C. R. (District Court, Unalaska)

C. R. is a manager for a marine company in western Alaska. He was stopped while driving his vehicle, administered field "sobriety" exercises and arrested for driving while intoxicated. He was taken to a police station where he allegedly refused to submit to a breath test. He was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and refusal to submit to a chemical test (refusal).

Mr. Slone was retained, and requested all discovery materials from the District Attorney’s Office, including copies of all audio and video recordings made at the police station. It was finally discovered that no audio or video recording at the police station was preserved. Thus, there was no objective means of determining of whether the officer advised C.R. of the ramifications of refusal to submit to a chemical test, other than the testimony of the officer. Likewise, there was no objective evidence indicating whether the officer has advised C.R. of his right to an independent blood test, other than the officer’s testimony.

Thus, Mr. Slone filed a pretrial motion to suppress (exclude) all evidence relating to C.R.’s alleged refusal to submit to a breath test. Mr. Slone also requested that the court give an instruction to the jury at trial that the jury must presume that a blood test, had one been offered, would have been favorable to C.R. on the issue of intoxication.

A pretrial evidentiary hearing was held in which the arresting officer, and other officers in the booking room testified. The arresting officer testified that he fully advised C.R. of the ramifications of refusal as required by law, including that refusal to submit to a chemical test was a crime. He also testified that he advised C.R. that he had a right to an independent blood test but that C.R. waived his right to an independent test. C.R., on the other hand, testified that he was never advised that refusal to submit to a breath test was a crime. C.R. also testified that he was not advised of his right to an independent blood test, and that if he had known that he had the right to an independent test he most likely would have taken one.

The officer testified that he thought that he had made an audio recording of the events at the police station. However, when he came back to work 2 days later and attempted to make a copy of the tape for the District Attorney’s Office, he noticed that the tape was blank. He acknowledged, on cross-examination, that he may have accidentally taped over the original tape by inserting it in the wrong slot in the duplicating machine. He admitted that he destroyed the original tape after he discovered that the tape was blank.

After additional briefing, the court granted Mr. Slone’s motions. Based on the failure to preserve a recording at the station, the judge excluded all evidence related to C.R.’s alleged refusal to submit to a chemical test. The judge also ruled that it would instruct the jury at trial that the jury must presume that if C.R. had been advised of his right to an independent test, he would have taken a test, and it would have been favorable to him on the issue of whether he was intoxicated.

After the court’s ruling in C.R.’s favor, the District Attorney dismissed all charges.

You can read other cases by clicking below

Get a Free Evaluation of your drunk driving case Now