Voetberg v. State Department of Motor Vehicles

Washington Supreme Court

Voetberg v. State Department of Motor Vehicles

496 P.2d 966, 80 Wash. 2d 629, 1972 Wash. LEXIS 611

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedMay 11, 1972

DocketNo. 42203

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 496 P.2d 966 (Voetberg v. State Department of Motor Vehicles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Voetberg v. State Department of Motor Vehicles, 496 P.2d 966, 80 Wash. 2d 629, 1972 Wash. LEXIS 611 (Wash. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant was arrested while driving a motor vehicle and the arresting officer, believing him to be under the influences of intoxicating liquor, requested that he submit to a chemical breath test for the presence of alcohol in his blood and advised him of the consequences of his refusal. The appellant equivocated at first but eventually refused to take the test. His license was suspended and he appealed to the superior court, which 'after a trial de novo, found that he was probably too intoxicated to understand the consequences of his refusal to take the test. The court held, however, that the lack of ability to understand the advice and warnings given pursuant to the implied [630]*630consent statute (RCW 46.20.308), due to voluntary intoxication, does not excuse a refusal of the chemical breath test. The suspension of the appellant’s license was upheld.

The arguments advanced by the appellant in this case are substantially the same as those which were presented to the court in Department of Motor Vehicles v. McElwain, 80 Wn.2d 624, 496 P.2d 963 (1972). The disposition of this case is controlled by that opinion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The appellant was arrested while driving a motor vehicle and the arresting officer, believing him to be under the influences of intoxicating liquor, requested that he submit to a chemical breath test for the presence of alcohol in his blood and advised him of the consequences of his refusal. The appellant equivocated at first but eventually refused to take the test. His license was suspended and he appealed to the superior court, which 'after a trial de novo, found that he was probably too intoxicated to understand the consequences of his refusal to take the test. The court held, however, that the lack of ability to understand the advice and warnings given pursuant to the implied [630]*630consent statute (RCW 46.20.308), due to voluntary intoxication, does not excuse a refusal of the chemical breath test. The suspension of the appellant’s license was upheld.

The arguments advanced by the appellant in this case are substantially the same as those which were presented to the court in Department of Motor Vehicles v. McElwain, 80 Wn.2d 624, 496 P.2d 963 (1972). The disposition of this case is controlled by that opinion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 P.2d 966, 80 Wash. 2d 629, 1972 Wash. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/voetberg-v-state-department-of-motor-vehicles-wash-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack