State v. Wieboldt

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 01-23-2014
  • Case #: A146806
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Nakamoto, J.; and De Muniz, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Advising a defendant of the lawful consequences that may flow from his or her decision to engage in a certain behavior ensures that the defendant makes an informed choice whether to engage in that behavior or not. Thus, a statement of the lawful consequences of refusal to submit to breath, blood, or urine tests is not unconstitutionally coercive.

Defendant appealed the judgment of a driving under the influence of intoxicants conviction, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his urinalysis because his consent to take the test was not valid and exigent circumstances did not otherwise justify the warrantless seizure and search of his urine. Defendant argued that he did not voluntarily consent to provide a urine sample, and that the statutory implied consent warnings were coercive as a whole. The Court of Appeals determined that, under the recent holding in State v. Moore, 354 Or 493 (2013), an officer's reading of the statutory rights and consequences of refusing to submit to blood, breath, or urine tests does not render Defendant's consent involuntary. Thus, the statement that evidence of refusal may be offered against Defendant was not coercive. Affirmed.

Advanced Search