Blog Layout

State v. Storholm, Court of Appeals Holds That a Police Officer Can Be Qualified to Draw Blood

azduicenter • Apr 22, 2005

Background

Phoenix police officer Thomas Tieman stopped the defendant for driving without his headlights and for following a vehicle too closely. The officer detected an odor of alcohol on defendant’s breath and observed that the defendant had fumbling fingers, bloodshot and watery eyes, and slurred speech.  After the defendant failed field sobriety tests, officer Tieman arrested him for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The defendant was taken to a police van, where another officer advised the defendant of his rights. The defendant agreed to take a breath test, which revealed a breath-alcohol concentration of 0.117 percent.

The defendant was not provided a sample of his breath, although the machine, the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, was capable of being fitted with an attachment that could preserve a sample. The defendant was informed of his right to obtain an independent chemical test, but he failed to do so.

The defendant was charged with aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or higher in his body within two hours of driving a motor vehicle, both Class 4 felonies.

Attempts to Suppress the Blood Test Results

The defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress the results of his breath test because the defendant was not provided a sample of his breath. At trial, the defendant stipulated that he knew, or had reason to know, that his license was suspended at the time he was arrested. A jury convicted the defendant on both charges. The court placed the defendant on probation for two years and also sentenced the defendant to four months of incarceration.

Court’s Ruling

The only issue on appeal is whether Constitutional due process requires law enforcement to provide those accused of driving under the influence with their own breath samples for independent testing.

The Court of Appeals stated the record failed to show either that the defendant was totally unable to obtain a breath sample and have it tested through another source, or that any difficulties were created by the State. In support of his contention, the defendant merely asserted that the manufacturer of a particular machine did not sell the machine to private persons.

The court went on to state that the record failed to show that the defendant had even attempted to obtain independent testing of his breath. The defendant did not offer any evidence that the State had created the difficulty he identified in obtaining a breath sample. On the contrary, the record showed that the defendant was informed of his right to seek an independent chemical test but did not seek one. He could have obtained a blood test. Consequently, the difficulty that the defendant identified in obtaining an independent breath sample failed to create a due process violation.

In sum, the Court of Appeals held that Constitutional due process did not require law enforcement to provide a defendant with his own breath sample for independent testing.

By Lawrence Koplow 09 Sep, 2020
The reported results of a BAC test in DUI cases appear to provide the answer we are seeking: how much ethanol is in a person’s blood.  However, let’s look at the fine print. The Reported Results A machine called a gas chromatograph is used to measure an alcohol concentration in blood samples.   The measurement, which […] The post Reported Result vs. Complete Result appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 05 Sep, 2020
The appearance of science can become the appearance of truth - even when the junk science is employed. Do we provide enough bandwidth to debunk these unreliable scientific claims? The post A Legal Bandwidth Problem appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 27 Aug, 2020
Measuring is different from counting. However, in forensic science the two are often suggested to be the same. This needs to change. MEASURING Measuring is the assignment of a number, and all the uncertainties of that of that number, to something.  The purpose of assigning a number is to give meaning to the object measured. […] The post Measuring and Counting | Forensic Science appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 23 Aug, 2020
What Do You Give a Shit About? You probably haven’t really considered the question. Finding the answer is not as easy as it may seem. Looking inward is uncomfortable. Self-examination requires courage. It may also demand change. Once you see what you really give a shit about – you can’t unsee it. Once you define […] The post Give a shit? appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 10 Aug, 2020
The Vermont Supreme Court holds xx The Constitutional Question xx The Legal Answer(s)  A xx  majority opinion reversed the appellate court decision finding: xx xx XX The Facts Traffic Stop A Vermont state trooper monitoring traffic on an Interstate.  He observed a vehicle traveling northbound without its rear license plate illuminated. The officer stopped the […] The post Validity of Consent To Search | Vermont v. Weisler appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 05 Aug, 2020
Esketamine Drug DUI Cases Will Become An Issue in Arizona It is well established that Depression is a common and serious health problem. According to the World Health Organization the disease affects more than 264 million people. Common Depression Treatments Depression treatments typically include antidepressant medications that fall in a class of drugs known as […] The post Esketamine DUI: How is it Different than Ketamine? appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 27 Jul, 2020
Arizona has an incarceration problem. We incarcerate people at a higher rate than most other states and many other countries. Incarcerating such a high rate of people comes with both a social and economic cost. To address these issues, several years ago the Arizona legislature passed a law that authorized a portion of a jail […] The post Home Detention: Approved for Maricopa County in DUI Cases appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 21 Jul, 2020
In the November 2020 election, a restricted use of recreational marijuana will be on Arizona voter’s ballots. The ballot initiative essentially decriminalizes possession and use of small amounts of cannabis. Currently, possession of marijuana is a felony in Arizona. This initiative would end such prosecutions. Arizona’s Marijuana initiative is titled the Smart and Safe Arizona […] The post 9 Facts About Arizona’s Recreational Marijuana Initiative (2020) appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 26 Jun, 2020
Justice Gorsuch authored the majority opinion The Legal Question Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex.  Does this mean the statute prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation? The Legal Answer Yes.  Employers who fire employees for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the […] The post Bostock v. Clayton County
Summary appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 02 May, 2020
Sometimes, what you need, is found in the last place you would ever expect it. When a teenage kid is caught in the middle of trying to steal the tires off the Batmobile you expect something to happen. You expect Batman to dispense his brand of “justice”.   https://youtu.be/7sVDEXfMdXo However, maybe his idea of justice […] The post Strength and Compassion of Batman [Updated 2020] appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
More Posts
Share by: