The Implied Consent Rights and Warnings were written to reflect Initiative 502, codified un RCW 46.20.308, effective December 5, 2012.
RCW 46.20.308 requires law enforcement to give specific warnings to a driver as to the consequences of either taking or refusing to take a breath or blood test. Connolly v. DOL, 79 Wn.2d 500 (1971); State v. Turpin, 94 Wn.2d 820 (1980); Spokane v. Holmberg, 50 Wn.App. 317 (1987).
The warnings, amended July 18, 2013, now provide: “The officer shall warn the driver, in substantially the following language, that: … (c)(1) The driver is age twenty-one or over and the test indicates either that the alcohol concentration of the driver’s breath is 0.08 or more or that the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is 5.00 or more.”
The latest amendments, effective September 28, 2013, eliminate implied consent blood tests; however, RCW 46.20.308(2) still mandates that drivers who are asked to submit a breath test be informed of the THC concentration limit as well.
The problem is — we have many officers in law enforcement who are using old forms or have used old forms in regards to Implied Consent Rights and Warnings. I take umbrage with this. So have other criminal defense attorneys.
The plain, unambiguous language of RCW 46.20.308(1)(2) that the THC warnings be given to drivers. The statute should not be so construed as to allow law enforcement the discretion to omit portions of the warnings. Otherwise, we run the risk of tainting knowing and intelligent decisions regarding the breath test or the exercise of any other rights granted under the Implied Consent Rights and Warnings statute.
Just wanted to let you know us freedom fighters are hard at work thinking of ways to hold the government to their burden of proof. Regardless, drink responsibly.
