ND: BAC consent not coerced just because a penalty extends to refusal

“[¶24] As discussed, an individual’s consent is not coerced simply because an administrative penalty has been attached to refusing the test or that law enforcement recites that law to the driver. Here, examining the totality of the circumstances at the time McCoy agreed to take the chemical breath test, nothing exists in the record to support a claim that McCoy’s actual consent was involuntary, in that no evidence shows McCoy’s consent was the product of coercion by the officer. The record does establish that the officer read McCoy the implied consent advisory and asked McCoy to take a chemical test and that McCoy, when presented with the choice of either ratifying or withdrawing his implied consent, agreed to take the test.” McCoy v. N.D. DOT, 2014 ND 119, 2014 N.D. LEXIS 134 (June 24, 2014),* followed in Herrman v. N.D. DOT, 2014 ND 129, 2014 N.D. LEXIS 127 (June 24, 2014)*, State v. Smith, 2014 ND 152, 2014 N.D. LEXIS 162 (July 17, 2014), and State v. Boehm, 2014 ND 154, 2014 N.D. LEXIS 158 (July 17, 2014).

Defendant was not in custody in the hospital when he confessed. He had the option of not talking to the officers, and he agreed to. State v. Rogers, 2014 ND 134, 2014 N.D. LEXIS 131 (June 24, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Consent. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.