STATE v. C.R.
Synopsis: Client stopped for speeding. Admitted to consuming alcohol and showed visible signs of impairment. Client performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested. Client brought back to the police station where the officer attempted to administer an Intoxilyzer test. Client balked at taking the breath test and asked what type of penalty would be imposed if she refused. Officer told her it would be a 90 day suspension whether she took the test and failed or she refused to take the test. Client refused.
Client was then read implied consent. When client questioned the officer about the statutory minimum suspension of 275 days for a refusal, the officer informed the client that that was only for persons previously convicted for OUI. Client signed the refusal form and was subsequently suspended for refusing to submit to a breath test.
Result: Following a hearing before the BMV, the 9 month administrative suspension was dismissed due to the officer providing the client with false information regarding the length of suspension, which the client relied upon to her detriment.