Officer Should Have Clarified Woman’s Chemical Test Admonition Rights.

A woman was arrested by the CHP when officers found her car stopped on a highway facing westbound in the eastbound lanes with an odor of alcohol on her breath, bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech and an unsteady gait. She refused to take a breath test at the scene. At the station, she was read the chemical test admonition verbatim and said she would submit to a blood test. A video of the scene demonstrates she asked to make a telephone call, and that the request was not acknowledged. A phlebotomist administered the blood test. After an administrative hearing, her driving privilege was suspended. She petitioned for a writ of mandate, which the superior court granted, stating: “The ‘fair meaning’ given to Ms. Hoberman-Kelly’s statements is that she is genuinely exasperated and confused by the conflict between her right to counsel as indicated on the wall of the police station and Officer Perry’s implicit and explicit refusal to permit her to call for an attorney. Officer Perry responds by reading the admonition mechanically and makes no effort to explain that the Miranda right does not apply to the chemical tests.” The appellate court affirmed, noting an officer is obligated to attempt to clarify an arrested person’s confusion over when the right to counsel arises.  Hoberman-Kelly v. Valverde  (Cal. App. First Dist., Div. 3; February 5, 2013) (Case No. A135763).