Attacking a willful refusal, specifically a license revocation for willful refusal, requires careful review of several legal issues. Under N.C.G.S. 20-16.2(d) there are effectively three issues to be decided by a DMV Hearing Officer at a license revocation hearing based on a willful refusal:

 

N

Reasonable Grounds?

Did a law enforcement officer have reasonable grounds to believe that the person was driving while impaired (DWI) or committing another implied-consent offense?
N

Informed?

Did the chemical analyst inform the person charged of their rights under 20-16.2(a) related to chemical analysis both orally and in writing?
N

Willfully Refuse?

Did the person willfully refuse to submit to a chemical analysis?

Did the arresting officer have reasonable grounds or probable cause for a DWI charge?

We have a post on attacking probable cause related to the charge of DWI, so I will not delve much into attacking probable cause here.

j

Definition:

Reasonable Grounds = Probable Cause

A hearing officer’s determination about whether reasonable grounds exists for an officer to believe that a DWI or another implied-consent offense had been committed is the same as determining if there was probable cause to find the same. State v. Harris, 279 N.C. 307, 182 S.E.2d 364 (1971).

The most important thing to note is that if you have a good probable cause issue, it may be strategically more beneficial to argue the lack of probable cause issue in the criminal case in front of a district court judge then to litigate the lack of reasonable grounds to believe issue in front of a DMV hearing officer. If the judge finds that there was no probable cause to arrest for DWI, then the DMV Hearing officer is estopped from deciding whether Reasonable Grounds existed to believe the person had committed an implied consent offense. Brower v. Killens, 122 N.C. App. 685, 472 S.E.2d 33 (1996).

 

Did the chemical analyst inform the person charged of their implied consent rights?

i

Form:

Orally and in Writing

The Statute requires that a person be read the “Rights of a Person Requested to Submit to a Chemical Analysis” (DHHS Form 4081) by the officer acting as the chemical analyst and be provided a copy of the same in writing. N.C.G.S. 20-16.2(a); State v. Lovett, 119 N.C. App. 689 (1995).

}

Timing:

When Must the Rights be Read?

There are two important issues regarding the timing of advising a person of their rights related to chemical analysis. First a person must be charged with an implied consent offense. A person is “charged” if the person has been arrested for an implied consent offense or criminal process has been issued (e.g. citation, arrest warrant). N.C.G.S. 20-16.2(a1). This timeline is important specifically for a person suspected of DWI that is requested to give a blood sample at a hospital. The key question is has the person either been arrested for or charged with DWI before the chemical analyst requests the person to submit to a blood test.

The other issue in regards to timing is that this advisement must happen prior to each type of chemical testing. State v. Williams, 759 S.E.2d 350 (N.C. App. 2014). If an officer is advising a person of his implied consent rights prior to breath testing and then decides that an attempt at a consensual blood draw is necessary, the chemical analyst must re-advise the person charged of their implied consent rights both orally and in writing.

Waiver:

Statutory Waiver of Rights Advisement in the Case of an Unconscious Person

Although 20-16.2(b) allows for an unconscious persons blood to be drawn without a warrant and without the typically rights advisement for implied consent testing, the Court of Appeals has recently found this Statute to be unconstitutional. State v. Romano, 785 S.E.2d 168 (N.C. App. 2016); see also Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). The Romano decision is currently awaiting review from the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Did the Person Willfully Refuse to Submit to a Chemical Analysis?

 

j

Definition:

Refusal

Refusal is defined as “the declination of a request or demand, or the omission to comply with some requirement of law, as the result of a positive intention to disobey.” Joyner v. Garrett, 279 N.C. 226, 233, 182 S.E.2d 553, 558, rehearing denied, 279 N.C. 397, 183 S.E.2d 241 (1971), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Ed. 1951); Etheridge v. Peters, 45 N.C.App. 358, 263 S.E.2d 308 (1980), affirmed 301 N.C. 76, 269 S.E.2d 133 (1980). “Willful” is defined as “voluntary; intentional.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1434 (5th ed. 1979). The term “willful refusal” embraces “the concept of a conscious choice purposely made.” Joyner v. Garrett, supra at 233, 182 S.E.2d at 558. The evidence must show that Defendant was afforded all his rights as provided by N.C.G.S. 20-16.2(a), and that he “consciously and purposely” declined the request to take the test.

Z

Requirements:

Elements of a Willful Refusal

A willful refusal occurs where a motorist:

  1. Is aware that he has a choice to take or refuse to take the test;
  2. Is aware of the time limit within which he must take the test;
  3. Voluntarily elects not to take the test, and;
  4. Knowingly permits the prescribed thirty-minute time limit to expire before he elects to take the test.

Etheridge v. Peters, 269 S.E.2d 133 (N.C. 1980)

Burden of Proof:

Civil v. Criminal

According to Powers v. Tatum, 676 S.E.2d 89 (2009), the State must prove a willful refusal occurred:

  1. Criminal trial – beyond reasonable doubt
  2. DMV hearing – by a preponderance of the evidence

Id. (“Assuming arguendo the district court had found the State had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner willfully refused to submit to the Intoxilyzer test to determine his blood alcohol content, the State would not have been precluded from attempting to prove the same by a preponderance of the evidence at a civil license revocation hearing.”)

t

Burden of Proof:

Whose Burden?

Under the statute, the respondent has the burden of proof to show that petitioner “willfully refused to submit to a chemical analysis.” Rock v. Hiatt, 103 N.C. App. 578, 580, 406 S.E.2d 638, 640 (1991) (quoting Joyner v. Garrett). It is important to hammer the burden of proof home to both a criminal district court judge and to the DMV hearing officer.

From my personal experience, it often feels that your client is expected to prove they have not refused, especially where you are arguing that your client did not have the lung capacity to blow on an intoxilyzer. If you client has a medical condition that can be presented to show that they would have difficulty with a breath test, that should be presented. However, constantly remind the judge or hearing officer that it is the State’s burden to prove willful refusal. Unless there is substantive evidence that your client was failing to follow instructions or was purposefully not blowing into the breath testing device, a judicial official should find that the State has not met its burden.

i

Doctrine:

Collateral estoppel

“Our appellate courts have allowed the doctrine of collateral estoppel to be applied when the same issue existed in a civil revocation proceeding and a separate criminal proceeding.” Powers v. Tatum, supra; see also State v. Summers, 351 N.C. 620 (2000).

Contact Us

If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime, it is important to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney that can help zealously defend your case. Contact us at Minick Law, P.C. for a free consultation on your case.

Aggressive Criminal Defense. Client Focused Service.

avvolivingwage1 tampa-dui-lawyer-national-college-for-dui-defense-elliott-wilcox-150x150aslatop100seal11-150x150ncaj-e1423045964976BBB
To find the membership requirements for the above organizations, as well as a lawyer directory showing which of the Minick Law attorneys are members of each organization, please visit each organization's website by clicking the appropriate graphic.
Great firm. Wonderful and rare attorneys.
We could use a million more just like them.

David H.

If attorneys are going to be this compassionate and nice I am going to have to stop telling attorney jokes.

Hilary S.

All questions were answered in a timely, respectful, and friendly manner. The firm's attorneys are devoted and their areas of expertise are far-ranging. This firm is top-notch!

William R.

...I had a note to myself on my calendar to follow up with their office, however, before that date came, they contacted ME, had successfully taken care of my traffic offense and sent me confirmation in the mail...

J. Nelson

This Law Firm really knows how to get the job done!...All the Attorney's here are very professional and easy to deal with. I highly recommend The Minick Law Firm for any of your needs. Thank you!

Patrick K.

Get the defense you need from a law firm that cares.

N

We Listen

During our initial conversation with you we will get information about the circumstances of your charge and your situation.
h

We Inform

Once we have these details we can explain the potential consequences you are facing.

We Plan

We will then create a detailed plan of action for your case to make sure that your traffic ticket is resolved in the appropriate manner. Our mission is to produce the best possible outcome on your case.

How Can We Help?

Asheville

A: 30 Orchard St. Asheville, NC 28801

P: (828) 333-5024

W: Visit Website

Charlotte

A: 2015 Ayrsley Town Blvd. #202-253 Charlotte, NC 28273

P: (704) 215-4242

W: Visit Website

Gastonia

A: 104 E. Main Ave Gastonia, NC 28052

P: (704) 323-8485

W: Visit Website

Waynesville

A: 258 N. Main Street Waynesville, NC 28786

P: (828) 333-5035

W: Visit Website

Wilmington

A: 321 N Front St #210, Wilmington, NC 28401

P: (910) 338-3994

W: Visit Website

Disclaimer

Every case is different, no results are guaranteed. This site and its information is not legal advice, nor is it intended to be. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Until an attorney-client relationship is established, please withhold from sending any confidential information to us.

Areas of Service

Cities: Asheville, Charlotte, Gastonia, Waynesville, and Wilmington.

Counties: Brunswick, Buncombe, Burke, Catawba, Cleveland, Columbus, Gaston, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Lincolnton, Madison, McDowell, Mecklenburg, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender, Polk, Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey.

bitcoin credit-card-logos
© Minick Law | NC DWI/DUI, Criminal Defense and Traffic Ticket Lawyers - All rights reserved. Created by Enable Design

Share This

Share this post with your friends!