Bush v. Bright

[790]

ELKINGTON, J.

This appeal concerns the interpretation of Vehicle Code section 13353, enacted in 1966, relating to chemical tests of intoxicated automobile drivers.

The section applies to any lawfully arrested person whom a peace officer has reasonable cause to believe was driving a motor vehicle upon a highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. It provides that such person shall be deemed to have given his consent to a chemical test of his blood, breath or urine. He may choose the type of test to be given. It also provides that if such a person refuses the officer ’s request to submit to such a test it need not be given, but his driver’s license shall be suspended for six months. Provision is made that the person be told of the penalty which will result from his refusal.

The purpose of section 13353 is to reduce the toll of death and injury resulting from the operation of motor vehicles on California highways by intoxicated persons. As said in

People

v.

Sudduth,

65 Cal.2d 543, 546 [55 Cal.Rptr. 393, 421 P.2d 401], “In a day when excessive loss of life and property is caused by inebriated drivers, an imperative need exists for a fair, efficient, and accurate system of detection, enforcement and, hence, prevention. ’ ’

The obvious reason for acquiescence in the refusal of such a test by a person who as a matter of law is “deemed to have given his consent ” is to avoid the violence which would often attend forcible tests upon recalcitrant inebriates. With this exception, the chemical tests may be given to any person covered by the statute, even if he be “dead, unconscious, or otherwise in a condition rendering him incapable of refusal. ’ ’

Such tests do not violate one’s right against self-incrimination

(Schmerber

v.

California,

384 U.S. 757, 760-765 [16 L.Ed.2d 908, 913-916, 86 S.Ct. 1826];