AZ: Exclusion not a remedy for violation of implied consent law

Exclusion of evidence for violation of the implied consent statute is not provided for by the statute nor required by the constitution. Soza v. Marner, 2018 Ariz. App. LEXIS 157 (Oct. 2, 2018):

¶24 Because the legislature nowhere in § 28-1321 prescribed suppression of evidence as the remedy for its violation, were we to do so of our own accord, we would be engrafting on the law a remedy neither provided for by the legislature nor required by the Constitution. Consequently, exclusion of the evidence is not a remedy for the violation of § 28-1321 by the warrantless, non-consensual taking of a breath test as a search incident to a lawful arrest. Although the breath test here may have not complied with the statute, the trial court’s suppressing the breath-test evidence as a sanction was improper. And, because the exclusionary rule is not applicable here in the first instance, it was unnecessary for the respondent court to examine the administering officer’s good faith to avoid its application.

This entry was posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.