Vermont v. Dubuque

Defendant Damon Dubuque was convicted for refusing a reasonable request for an evidentiary test after being convicted of DUI. He appealed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence of his refusal to give a blood sample, arguing that he should have been offered a breath test instead. Police were dispatched to a rollover accident; the vehicle was operated by Defendant. After speaking with defendant, the officer arrested him on suspicion of driving under the influence and accompanied him in an ambulance to the hospital. Approximately one hour and forty-five minutes after the accident, the officer began processing defendant for the offense of driving under the influence. He asked defendant to provide a blood sample, and defendant refused, stating that he would give only a breath sample. After defendant was released from the hospital, the officer transported him to a residential and detoxification facility. The facility refused to admit him. The officer then took him to a detox facility at the Chittenden Regional Correctional Center. At no point did defendant give either a blood or breath sample, nor did the officer ask defendant to take a test after leaving the hospital. Defendant was arraigned on charges of "DUI #3 or Subsequent – Test Refusal" and one other charge, which was subsequently dropped. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the refusal to give a blood sample. The sole issue at the hearing on the motion to suppress was whether breath-testing equipment was reasonably available when the officer processed defendant, given the unknown amount of time that defendant could be expected to remain in the hospital. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that in this case, the time at which the officer began processing and made the request for the test was close to when the permissive-inference window would close. At that point, the officer could not determine when defendant's medical evaluation and treatment would end. It was not reasonable for the officer to prematurely remove defendant from the hospital in order to obtain a breath test. The Court held therefore that the breath-testing equipment was not reasonably available and affirmed the trial court. View "Vermont v. Dubuque" on Justia Law