SCHWAB, C.J.
This appeal presents the question of whether it was error to admit into evidence in a negligent homicide trial the results of a blood alcohol test showing an alcohol content of .24 per cent
[205]*205The night of September 14, 1971, defendant was driving a pickup truck north on US 99E. Near Gervais defendant’s truck and an automobile collided head-on. The driver of the automobile later died from injuries received in the accident.
One eyewitness testified that the collision occurred in the southbound lane, i.e., that defendant was over the center line. Pictures of the damage to the vehicles and of tire marks, etc., on the highway were consistent with the state’s theory that defendant had been driving in the wrong, i.e., southbound, lane, and was turning back toward his lane at the time of the collision. Six witnesses testified that they were in defendant’s presence in the hours following the accident; each testified that he had formed the opinion defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Defendant was taken by ambulance to a hospital. A state policeman and deputy district attorney investigating the accident came to the hospital and asked defendant’s permission to take a blood sample for purposes of a chemical sobriety test. Defendant refused. Neither party contends that the defendant was so intoxicated that he could not understand the request. In spite of his refusal and at least verbal resistance, a blood sample was withdrawn from defendant’s arm.②
No constitutional issue is presented. Nothing in the United States or Oregon constitutions would prohibit a policeman who has probable cause to believe a person was driving under the influence of alcohol from requiring that person to submit to a chemical test of his blood, breath, saliva, urine, etc. Schmerber v. California, 384 US 757, 86 S Ct 1826, 16 L Ed 2d 908 [206]*206(1966); Heer v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 252 Or 455, 450 P2d 533 (1969); State v. Cram, 176 Or 577, 160 P2d 283, 164 ALR 952 (1945). As in other situations where the police have probable cause to make a search, the driver’s consent or lack thereof would be irrelevant. Schmerber v. California, supra.
However, in adopting the Implied Consent Law, the legislative assembly did not fix the statutory limits at the constitutionally permissible limits. Instead, it is apparent that in some instances drivers have a statutory right under the Implied Consent Law to refuse to submit to any and all chemical sobriety tests.
The material provisions of the Implied Consent Law provide:
“Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to ORS 483.634 to 483.646, to a chemical test of his breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if arrested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of subsection (2) of ORS 483.992 or of a municipal ordinance * * ORS 483.634 (1).
“If a person under arrest for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of subsection (2) of ORS 483.992 or of a municipal ordinance, refuses the request of a police officer to submit to a chemical test of his breath as provided in subsection (1) of this section * * * no test shall be given, but the police officer shall prepare a sworn report of the refusal and cause it to be delivered to the division * # ORS 483.634 (2). (Emphasis supplied.)
“If a person under arrest refuses to submit to a chemical test of his breath under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section or refuses to con[207]*207sent to chemical tests as provided by ORS 483.636, evidence of his refusal shall not be admissible in any civil or criminal action, suit or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle on the highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” ORS 483.634 (3). (Emphasis supplied.)
“Nothing in ORS 483.634 is intended to, in lieu of a request for an administration of a breath test, preclude the administration of a chemical test of the blood, urine or saliva of any person if, when requested by a police officer, the person expressly consents to such a test.” ORS 483.636. (Emphasis supplied.)
These sections explicitly state that arrested drivers can “refuse to submit,” ORS 483.634 (2) and 483.634 (3), to chemical breath tests, and arrested drivers must “expressly consent,” ORS 483.636, to other chemical tests. “# * * [T]he statute recognizes that a person may refuse to submit to the test * * *,” State v. Fogle, 254 Or 268, 270, 459 P2d 873 (1969). See also, Thorp v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 4 Or App 552, 480 P2d 716 (1971); State v. Greenough, 7 Or App 520, 491 P2d 630 (1971), Sup Ct review denied (1972).
The state argues that the statutory right of refusal is limited to
“® * * a person under arrest for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of subsection (2) of ORS 483.992 or of a municipal ordinance * * *.” ORS 483.634 (2),
and points out that here defendant was arrested, just before the blood sample was taken, for reckless driving.
[208]*208The legislature may limit the statutory right to refuse to take a breath
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SCHWAB, C.J.
This appeal presents the question of whether it was error to admit into evidence in a negligent homicide trial the results of a blood alcohol test showing an alcohol content of .24 per cent
[205]*205The night of September 14, 1971, defendant was driving a pickup truck north on US 99E. Near Gervais defendant’s truck and an automobile collided head-on. The driver of the automobile later died from injuries received in the accident.
One eyewitness testified that the collision occurred in the southbound lane, i.e., that defendant was over the center line. Pictures of the damage to the vehicles and of tire marks, etc., on the highway were consistent with the state’s theory that defendant had been driving in the wrong, i.e., southbound, lane, and was turning back toward his lane at the time of the collision. Six witnesses testified that they were in defendant’s presence in the hours following the accident; each testified that he had formed the opinion defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Defendant was taken by ambulance to a hospital. A state policeman and deputy district attorney investigating the accident came to the hospital and asked defendant’s permission to take a blood sample for purposes of a chemical sobriety test. Defendant refused. Neither party contends that the defendant was so intoxicated that he could not understand the request. In spite of his refusal and at least verbal resistance, a blood sample was withdrawn from defendant’s arm.②
No constitutional issue is presented. Nothing in the United States or Oregon constitutions would prohibit a policeman who has probable cause to believe a person was driving under the influence of alcohol from requiring that person to submit to a chemical test of his blood, breath, saliva, urine, etc. Schmerber v. California, 384 US 757, 86 S Ct 1826, 16 L Ed 2d 908 [206]*206(1966); Heer v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 252 Or 455, 450 P2d 533 (1969); State v. Cram, 176 Or 577, 160 P2d 283, 164 ALR 952 (1945). As in other situations where the police have probable cause to make a search, the driver’s consent or lack thereof would be irrelevant. Schmerber v. California, supra.
However, in adopting the Implied Consent Law, the legislative assembly did not fix the statutory limits at the constitutionally permissible limits. Instead, it is apparent that in some instances drivers have a statutory right under the Implied Consent Law to refuse to submit to any and all chemical sobriety tests.
The material provisions of the Implied Consent Law provide:
“Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to ORS 483.634 to 483.646, to a chemical test of his breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if arrested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of subsection (2) of ORS 483.992 or of a municipal ordinance * * ORS 483.634 (1).
“If a person under arrest for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of subsection (2) of ORS 483.992 or of a municipal ordinance, refuses the request of a police officer to submit to a chemical test of his breath as provided in subsection (1) of this section * * * no test shall be given, but the police officer shall prepare a sworn report of the refusal and cause it to be delivered to the division * # ORS 483.634 (2). (Emphasis supplied.)
“If a person under arrest refuses to submit to a chemical test of his breath under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section or refuses to con[207]*207sent to chemical tests as provided by ORS 483.636, evidence of his refusal shall not be admissible in any civil or criminal action, suit or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle on the highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” ORS 483.634 (3). (Emphasis supplied.)
“Nothing in ORS 483.634 is intended to, in lieu of a request for an administration of a breath test, preclude the administration of a chemical test of the blood, urine or saliva of any person if, when requested by a police officer, the person expressly consents to such a test.” ORS 483.636. (Emphasis supplied.)
These sections explicitly state that arrested drivers can “refuse to submit,” ORS 483.634 (2) and 483.634 (3), to chemical breath tests, and arrested drivers must “expressly consent,” ORS 483.636, to other chemical tests. “# * * [T]he statute recognizes that a person may refuse to submit to the test * * *,” State v. Fogle, 254 Or 268, 270, 459 P2d 873 (1969). See also, Thorp v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 4 Or App 552, 480 P2d 716 (1971); State v. Greenough, 7 Or App 520, 491 P2d 630 (1971), Sup Ct review denied (1972).
The state argues that the statutory right of refusal is limited to
“® * * a person under arrest for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of subsection (2) of ORS 483.992 or of a municipal ordinance * * *.” ORS 483.634 (2),
and points out that here defendant was arrested, just before the blood sample was taken, for reckless driving.
[208]*208The legislature may limit the statutory right to refuse to take a breath test to situations when a driver is arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Under ORS 483.636, however, a blood test cannot be compelled over the driver’s refusal; this section is not qualified in any way by making it dependent upon the reason for the driver’s arrest.
Moreover, the statutory language upon which the state relies, ORS 483.634 (2), must be read in conjunction with ORS 483.634 (3) which provides that evidence of a driver’s refusal to submit to any kind of chemical test
“* * * shall not be admissible in any civil or criminal action, suit or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle on the highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.”
If the statutory right to refuse to take a blood test were limited to persons arrested for driving under the influence, the quoted part of ORS 483.634 (3) would be meaningless. We do not believe the legislature intended blood test results obtained without a driver’s consent to be admissible any time the driver was arrested for something other than driving while under the influence of liquor, while at the same time providing the act of refusing to consent was inadmissible “in any # * criminal action.”
After police interviewed witnesses at the accident scene they had probable cause to arrest defendant for driving under the influence, or reckless driving or possibly any number of other traffic violations. It could produce absurd results if the standards of the Implied Consent Law did or did not apply depending on the words the officer selected in making an arrest [209]*209or issuing a citation. Statutes should be interpreted to avoid absurd results. See, Nanny v. Oregon Liquor Control Com., 179 Or 274, 171 P2d 360 (1946).
Our conclusion is compelled by State v. Fogle, supra. Fogle, like this case, involved a negligent homicide charge. The Supreme Court held evidence' of chemical breath test results inadmissible on the grounds of noncompliance with the Implied Consent Law. While the Fogle opinion does not mention the charge on which Fogle was originally arrested, the failure to do so indicates the Supreme Court believed that to be irrelevant.③
The Implied Consent Law permits an arrested driver to refuse to submit to chemical sobriety tests. This statutory right was available to defendant in this'case. The blood sample should not have been taken without defendant’s consent. Its use at trial was error.
The defendant makes two other assignments of error. They do not warrant discussion beyond noting that State v. Montieth, 247 Or 43, 417 P2d 1012 (1966), dismissed 386 US 780, 87 S Ct 1496, 18 L Ed 2d 526 (1967), disposes of both contrary to his contentions.
Reversed and remanded.
More than .10 per cent of alcohol in the blood creates a disputable presumption that a driver is under the influence. ORS 483.642 (l)(c).