Calvert v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE, MOTOR VEHICLE D.
1974 Colo. LEXIS 804, 519 P.2d 341, 184 Colo. 214 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When law enforcement officers give a driver Miranda warnings, which include the right to counsel, they must clarify that this right does not apply to the decision to submit to a chemical test under the implied consent law; otherwise, the driver's subsequent request to consult with an attorney before taking the test does not constitute a legal refusal.
Facts:
- During the early morning of October 9, 1971, a Denver patrolman observed Starr Calvert driving his car in an erratic manner and pulled him over.
- The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol and observed Calvert stagger as he walked.
- At the police station, the officer advised Calvert of his Miranda rights, including his right to consult with an attorney.
- Calvert then requested to call his lawyer, but his request was refused by the officer.
- The officer immediately read Calvert an advisement form for the implied consent law, which explained that refusing a chemical test would lead to a license revocation hearing.
- Calvert refused to sign the form or submit to the test, repeatedly stating he would not do anything until he had consulted his attorney.
- As a result of Calvert's insistence on speaking with his lawyer, the chemical test was never administered.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division, held a hearing and revoked Starr Calvert’s operator’s license for six months.
- Calvert appealed the Department's revocation order to the district court (a state trial court).
- The district court affirmed the Department’s order.
- Calvert appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court of Colorado (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a driver's request to consult an attorney before submitting to a chemical test, made after being given Miranda warnings, constitute a refusal to take the test under the implied consent law when the police do not clarify that the right to an attorney does not apply to this decision?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Pringle
No. Under these circumstances, a driver's request to consult with an attorney does not amount to a legal refusal to take a chemical test. Although a driver has no constitutional right to an attorney before deciding whether to submit to a chemical test, the situation is different when police have created confusion. By giving the Miranda warning (including the right to counsel) and then immediately requesting submission to the test without clarifying the scope of that right, the police inadvertently caused Calvert's misunderstanding. When law enforcement officers cause a suspect's misunderstanding of the law, the suspect cannot be held strictly accountable for a refusal based on that confusion. Calvert should have been advised that the right to counsel he was just told about did not apply to the chemical test decision.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant qualification to the strict application of implied consent laws. It places an affirmative duty on law enforcement to clarify a potential conflict between Miranda rights and the requirements of the implied consent statute. The ruling protects drivers from being penalized for a good-faith, reasonable misunderstanding of their rights created by the actions of the police. This precedent requires officers in similar situations to provide a specific advisement that the right to counsel does not extend to the chemical testing decision, thereby ensuring any subsequent refusal is knowing and unequivocal.
Unlock the full brief for Calvert v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE, MOTOR VEHICLE D.