State v. SailolaAnnotate this Case
Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant and taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant elected to take a breath test. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the breath test results, arguing that his Miranda rights were violated when he was asked by the police, without Miranda warnings, if he wanted to refuse to take a blood alcohol test and that his right to an attorney was violated. The motion was denied, and Defendant was convicted. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and the ICA erred by concluding that the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the breath test result.