Opinion
Case No. 20040274-CA.
Filed June 3, 2005. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, 030925487, The Honorable Glenn K. Iwasaki.
Jason Schatz, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Rebecca D. Waldron, Salt Lake City, for Appellees.
Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Jackson.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
John Gonzales appeals the district court's order upholding the suspension of his driving privileges due to his refusal to submit to chemical testing after being arrested for driving under the influence. Gonzales argues that the arresting officer failed to properly advise Gonzales of his rights under Utah's Implied Consent Law. See Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44.10 (Supp. 2004). We review for correctness the district court's legal determination that, under the facts of this case, the officer complied with the requirements of Utah Code section 41-6-44.10. See Miller v. Blackstock, 2001 UT App 352, ¶ 6, 36 P.3d 525.
We cite to the current version of the statute for ease of reference, as the current version does not differ in any relevant way from the version in effect at the time of Gonzales's arrest.
Gonzales contends that he thought the breath test administered by the officer produced a valid result. According to Gonzales, Utah law required the officer to recognize and clarify Gonzales's confusion. In addition, Gonzales argues that the officer was required to recite the standard admonitions a second time before requesting that Gonzales submit to a blood test.
Under Utah law, we must determine whether the officer provided warnings "`that a person of reasonable intelligence, who is in command of his senses, would understand.'" Lee v. Schwendiman, 722 P.2d 766, 767 (Utah 1986) (quoting Muir v. Cox, 611 P.2d 384, 386 (Utah 1980) (Stewart, J., concurring)). Thus, Gonzales's subjective state of mind is not relevant to our inquiry. The record demonstrates that the officer informed Gonzales of his rights and obligations under Utah Code section 41-6-44.10 prior to administering the breath test. Gonzales agreed to take the test. The officer explained the test procedure to Gonzales. However, Gonzales did not follow the procedure, despite repeated requests to do so. The officer showed Gonzales the breath test report that indicated that the breath sample provided by Gonzales was insufficient to produce a valid result. The officer then requested Gonzales to submit to a blood test, explaining to Gonzales that a refusal to submit to the test would result in an 18-month suspension of his driving privileges. Gonzales indicated that he had already taken the breath test, and would not submit to the blood draw. The officer told Gonzales that the breath test did not yield a valid result due to his refusal to follow instructions, which is regarded as a refusal. Yet, given multiple opportunities to comply with the officer's requests, Gonzales refused to submit to the required tests. We conclude that the officer provided Gonzales warnings that were sufficient to apprise a person of reasonable intelligence of his rights under Utah Code section 41-6-44.10.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order upholding the suspension of Gonzales's driving privileges.
WE CONCUR: James Z. Davis, Judge, Norman H. Jackson, Judge.