Summary
interpreting former DUI statute and concluding that arresting officer could properly demand that the driver submit to a blood test because "unlike the foregoing provisions as to DUI-drug offenses, the statutory provisions as to DUI-alcohol offenses explicitly give the driver the choice of submitting either to a blood or a breath test"
Summary of this case from People v. ZubiateOpinion
No. 87CA1729
Decided August 24, 1989. Rehearing Denied November 2, 1989. Certiorari Denied April 9, 1990 (89SC665).
Appeal from the District Court of Boulder County Honorable Murray Richtel, Judge
Wollrab Associates, James C. Wollrab, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Duane Woodard, Attorney General, Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richard H. Forman, Solicitor General, David M. Kaye, Assistant Attorney General, for Defendant-Appellee.
Plaintiff, Richard Stanger, appeals from the district court judgment affirming the revocation of his driver's license by the Department of Revenue. We affirm.
In February 1987, plaintiff was arrested after he was seen driving erratically. His driver's license was subsequently revoked pursuant to § 42-2-122.1(1)(a)(II), C.R.S. (1984 Repl. Vol. 17) for his refusal to submit to chemical testing as required by § 42-4-1202(3), C.R.S.(1984 Repl. Vol. 17). Evidence educed at the revocation hearing was conflicting as to whether plaintiff's arrest was for driving under the influence of drugs (DUI-drug) or for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI-alcohol). See §§ 42-4-1202(1) and (1.5), C.R.S. (1984 Repl. Vol. 17).
Following plaintiff's arrest, the arresting officer, observing suspected narcotics-induced behavior, requested plaintiff to take a blood test to screen for narcotics. According to the arresting officer's testimony, plaintiff initially consented to such a test, but later refused to submit to it. He then offered to take a breath test instead, but the arresting officer refused that request because breath tests do not determine the presence of narcotics. The officer again explained to plaintiff that he wanted him to take a blood test because he believed narcotic drugs were involved.
Plaintiff testified that, besides offering to take a breath test, he also offered to take a urine test or any test other than a blood test because he was afraid of needles. However, the arresting officer testified that he did not recall these requests. In any event, the only test that plaintiff was offered was a blood test which he refused to take.
The hearing officer found that plaintiff was arrested for DUI-drug offenses and that he had refused to submit to chemical testing as required. He therefore revoked plaintiff's driver's license. On review, the district court affirmed the revocation.
I.
Plaintiff initially contends that because he was charged with DUI-alcohol offenses rather than DUI-drug offenses, the arresting officer denied his statutory right to choose to take a breath test and to obtain the possibly exculpatory evidence a breath test would have provided. He further argues that he had the right to choose which test to take and that, therefore, his refusal to take the blood test was not justification for revocation. We find no merit in these contentions.
A.
Section 42-2-122.1 is a remedial statute calculated to insure public safety on the highways and should be construed liberally in accordance with the public interest. Nefzger v. Colorado Department of Revenue, 739 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1987); Irey v. Nielson, 716 P.2d 486 (Colo.App. 1986).
The manifest legislative objective of promoting public safety by revoking the driving privileges of those who operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is not conditioned on the filing of criminal charges for violation of § 42-4-1202. Nefzger v. Colorado Department of Revenue, supra.
Moreover, the Department of Revenue's determination of the facts with respect to administrative revocation "is independent of the determination of the same or similar facts in the adjudication of any criminal charges arising out of the same occurrence." Section 42-2-122.1(1)(c) C.R.S. (1984 Repl. Vol. 17). See Nefzger v. Colorado Department of Revenue, supra. When, as here, the statutory text evidences a legislative intent to treat separately the administrative and criminal consequences of driving under the influence of intoxicants, the statute should be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the entire legislative scheme. Nefzger v. Colorado Department of Revenue, supra; Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Barnes, 191 Colo. 278, 552 P.2d 300 (1976); § 2-4-202(1)(b), C.R.S.(1980 Repl. Vol. 1B).
Thus, we conclude that there is no significance here to the offense charged since, under § 42-2-122.1, administrative revocation proceedings are to be conducted independently of the particular criminal DUI charge.
B.
Generally, any right to refuse to submit to chemical testing and any right to choose a particular type of chemical test must be found in statutory rather than constitutional law. Brewer v. Motor Vehicle Division, 720 P.2d 564 (Colo. 1986); People v. Gillett, 629 P.2d 613 (Colo. 1981). We therefore look to the appropriate statutory scheme concerning plaintiff's contentions regarding his right to choose which test to take.
Under § 42-2-122.1(1)(a)(II), C.R.S. (1988 Cum. Supp.), revocation of a person's driver's license is mandatory if the person "[r]efused to submit to a chemical analysis of his blood, breath, saliva, or urine as required by section 42-4-1202(3)." As to DUI-drug offenses, § 42-4-1202(3)(a)(III), C.R.S. (1984 Repl. Vol. 17) provided that any driver arrested for DUI-drug offenses " may be required to submit to a chemical test of his blood, saliva, and urine for the purpose of determining the drug content within his system. . . ." (emphasis supplied) Cf. § 42-4-1202(3)(a)(III), C.R.S.(1988 Cum. Supp.) (a driver " shall be required to submit to a test or tests . . . . "). We note that, unlike the foregoing provisions as to DUI-drug offenses, the statutory provisions as to DUI-alcohol offenses explicitly give the driver the choice of submitting either to a blood or a breath test. Section 42-4-1202(3)(a)(II), C.R.S. (1984 Repl. Vol. 17); Brewer v. Motor Vehicle Division, supra. This language of choice is conspicuously absent in the provisions relating to the offense of DUI-drug.
We must presume that the General Assembly intended to treat the DUI-drug offense differently when, in 1983, it enacted the testing requirement provisions relating to that offense without explicitly according a suspected drug-influenced driver the right to choose between alternative types of drug tests. Hence, the arresting officer here could properly demand that plaintiff submit to a blood test.
We also reject plaintiff's alternative contention that the arresting officer was required to order plaintiff to take all three types of drug tests or no tests at all. Rather, we hold that an arresting officer acting at his sole discretion, was authorized under the foregoing statutory provisions to require a driver arrested for suspected DUI-drug offenses to submit to any one of the alternative types of drug tests which would reveal the presence of drugs. See § 42-4-1202(3)(b), C.R.S. (1984 Repl. Vol. 17). Thus, plaintiff's acknowledged refusal to submit to the test he was required to take mandated that his driving privilege be revoked.
Amendments to § 42-4-1202(3)(a)(II) (as to DUI-alcohol) and § 42-4-1202(3)(a)(III) (as to DUI-drugs), which apply to revocation proceedings under § 42-2-122.1 commenced on or after July 1, 1988, support and are consistent with our holding concerning the discretion of arresting officers to require suspected drug-impaired drivers to submit to a chemical test. See §§ 42-2-1202(3)(a)(II) and (III), C.R.S. (1988 Cum. Supp.).
II.
As plaintiff's due process claim is raised for the first time on appeal to this court, it was not properly preserved for appellate review, and we decline to address it. See Brewer v. Motor Vehicle Division, supra; Colgan v. State, 623 P.2d 871 (Colo. 1981).
III.
We have considered plaintiff's other assignments of error and find them to be without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE REED concurs.