ÿWPC 9# .UN9 %‡ 0DbÑU>Ù 0`4w‹UPš 0ˆê 0Dr 0J¶ 0Tw T 0`^ 0^¾Æ 0hâ 0rJ AO¼ 0D 0|O 0†Ë 0Q 1uá U,V 0d‚ 0@æ B& D3C D/v B¥ U, U >î U6,¦bB)DC1 AMtU*Áë±v~³vÓ1˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò- ù-<èÀ( 9 &Courier Regular(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý»\2 #Ø'É:3|x&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôþ(83‚ª$¢¢Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 526 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó ó2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€.ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd$2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€.ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ€4ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔó óÌò òÔ€4¼ÔJanuaryÏ29,Ï1996ó óÔ€4XÔÌÌò òCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.Ô€.Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€.ÂÔÔ€4ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€.ÔÔ€.XÔ §Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€.ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€/Ô"Any€person€who€drives€any€motor€vehicle€in€the€state€ofÏTennessee€shall€be€deemed€to€have€given€consent€to€a€test€forÏthe€purpose€of€determining€the€alcoholic€or€drug€content€ofÏthat€person's€blood.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„406(a)(1)Ï(1993)€(amendment€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„406Ï(Supp.€1995)).€€"[R]efusal€to€submit€to€such€test€will€resultÏin€the€suspension€of€the€driver's€operator's€license.€.€.€."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„406(a)(2).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÓ&€--X„d&ÓÑ#€--Xd#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÑ , ÑÓ` °‚X.h—XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€XXdÖXXdì7ÑÔ€/ÔÖ€0ÖÑ  Ñà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFORÏPUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÙ€ÙßL€352;+'h|,·æ. `€€LßÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(Ì€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(€€PutnamÏCriminalÌà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.€JohnÏA.€Turnbull,Ìà àà àà àà àà à(€€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(€€No.€01S0l„9503„CC„00036Ìà àà àà àà àà à(ÌBILLY€D.€FRASIER,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(Ì€€€€€Defendant„Appellant.à à(ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ ÔÔ€ îÔò òòòD€I€S€S€E€N€T€I€N€G€€OÏP€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÔ€/ÔÔ€/XÔÌÓÓà àI€dissent€from€the€majority's€holding€that€a€personÏarrested€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€willÏbe€denied€the€right€to€consult€with€counsel€prior€toÏsubmitting€to€a€breath€test,€regardless€of€the€circumstances,Ïand€also€from€the€majority's€holding€that€the€defendant'sÏright€against€self„incrimination€would€not€be€violated€by€theÏadmission€of€his€refusal€to€submit€to€the€breath€test€asÏevidence€of€intoxication.€€ÌÌà àOn€the€first€issue,€the€majority€paints€with€broadÏstrokes€and€reaches€a€conclusion€which€unnecessarilyÏcompromises€the€right€of€an€accused€to€seek€legal€advice.€€IÏagree€that€there€is€no€constitutional€prohibition€againstÏrequiring€a€person€arrested€for€DUI€to€submit€to€the€statutoryÏtest.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€However,€the€accused€should€be€permitted€to€consultÏwith€counsel€if€the€consultation€does€not€substantially€impedeÍthe€testing€process.€€The€majority's€opinion€apparently€wouldÏnot€allow€a€person€arrested€for€DUI€to€ask€the€advice€of€aÏlawyer€who€might€be€seated€in€the€vehicle€with€the€arrestedÏdriver€or€to€use€a€car€telephone€to€call€a€lawyer€whileÏwaiting€for€the€test€to€be€administered.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏSensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412,€416€(Tenn.€1992)€(The€breath€testingÏdevice€requires€that€the€motorist€be€observed€for€20€minutesÏprior€to€taking€the€test.).ÌÌà àThe€majority€quotes€extensively€from€òòSites€v.€Stateóó,Ï481€A.2d€192€(Md.€1984),€which€held€that€a€drunk€drivingÏsuspect€has€a€due€process€right€to€communicate€with€counsel,Ïwhere€doing€so€will€not€impair€the€accuracy€of€the€test.€€TheÏmajority€concludes,€however,€that€a€òòSitesóó„type€rule€would€beÏdifficult€to€apply,€thus€denying€the€accused€a€fundamentalÏright€not€out€of€necessity€but€for€the€mere€convenience€of€theÏpolice.€€I€fail€to€recognize€the€difficulty€in€applying€a€ruleÏthat€would€allow€the€accused€to€attempt€to€contact€an€attorneyÏduring€the€time€interval€the€arresting€officer€is€required€toÏobserve€the€defendant€before€performing€the€breath€test.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€at€416€(holding€that€"the€testingÍofficer€must€be€able€to€testify€.€.€.€that€the€motorist€wasÏobserved€for€the€requisite€20€minutes€prior€to€the€test.€.Ï.").€€Such€a€rule,€in€which€the€burden€would€be€on€theÏdefendant€to€show€that€the€time€needed€to€contact€his€lawyerÏwould€not€have€delayed€the€test,€would€properly€balance€theÏState's€interest€in€enforcing€the€law€and€an€arrested€person'sÏdue€process€right€to€counsel.ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€the€evidence€issue,€I€would€hold€thatÏthe€privilege€against€self„incrimination€guaranteed€by€ArticleÏ1,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€prohibits€theÏintroduction€of€evidence€that€the€defendant€refused€to€takeÏthe€blood€or€breath€test.€€Article€I,€Section9€provides:€Ï"That€in€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€.€.€.€shallÏnot€be€compelled€to€give€evidence€against€himself."€€TheÏmajority€concludes€that€admission€into€evidence€of€theÏdefendant's€refusal€to€submit€to€the€test€would€not€violateÏhis€right€against€self„incrimination,€because€the€refusal€wasÏnot€evidence€of€a€testimonial€or€communicative€nature.€€TheÏmajority€finds€the€defendant's€"refusal€of€the€test€wasÏfunctionally€the€same€as€if€he€had€submitted€to€the€test."€ÍMajority€Opinion€at€_____€[slip€op.€at€p.€12].€€The€majorityÏdoes€not€recognize€the€significant€distinction€between€theÏresults€of€the€test€and€the€refusal€to€take€the€test.€€TheÏmajority,€quoting€òòSouth€Dakota€v.€Nevilleóó,€459€U.S.€553,€563„64€(1983),€says,€"Nor€is€this€a€case€where€the€State€hasÏsubtly€coerced€respondent€into€choosing€the€option€that€it€hadÏno€right€to€compel,€rather€than€offering€a€true€choice."€€ÏMajority€Opinion€at€_____€[slip€op.€at€10].€€Legal€sophistryÏaside,€the€coercion€is€more€than€subtle,€it€is€blatant.€€TheÏState€gives€the€accused€two€choices€„€take€the€test€andÏincriminate€himself€or€refuse€to€take€the€test€and€incriminateÏhimself.€€Making€and€declaring€that€choice€is€compelledÏevidence€that€incriminates.€€It€is€similar€to€compelling€aÏhandwriting€sample.€€As€stated€in€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2dÏ54,€80€(Tenn.€1992)€(Reid,€C.J.,€dissenting):ÌÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€not€within€the€accused's€power€toÏchange€his€fingerprints,€hair,€breath€orÏblood.€€But€a€handwriting€exemplarÏrequires€the€truthful€participation€ofÏthe€accused€if€it€is€to€possess€anyÏevidentiary€value.€€The€privilege€againstÏself„incrimination€resulted€from€attemptsÏto€extract€from€a€person's€lips€a€trueÏstatement€concerning€his€guilt€andÏthereby€to€supply€the€needed€proofÍagainst€himself.ÌÌÌÌÓÓIn€this€case,€the€statement€that€the€State€obtains€from€theÏdefendant€and€uses€as€evidence€of€his€guilt€is€"I€refuse€toÏtake€the€test€because€I€expect€it€would€show€evidence€ofÏintoxication."€Ì€Ìà àThe€issue€was€put€succinctly€in€òòPeople€v.€Hayesóó,€235ÏN.W.2d€182,€184„85€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1975),€where€the€courtÏheld:ÌÌÒ 0 ÒÒ p ÒÓÓ[T]he€admission€of€a€defendant's€refusalÏto€submit€to€an€intoxication€test€wouldÏrender€nugatory€the€choice€which€theÏstatute€provides€him€.€.€.€.€€He€canÏeither€submit€to€a€test€the€results€ofÏwhich€could€create€a€virtually€irrefutableÏpresumption€of€guilt€against€him,€or€heÏcan€refuse€the€test€and€suffer€theÏrevocation.€€If€the€fact€that€theÏdefendant€has€chosen€not€to€submit€to€aÏtest€can€be€placed€before€the€jury€as€anÏinference€of€his€guilt,€then€he€will€beÏput€in€the€position€of€having€to€riskÏproviding€evidence€for€the€prosecution€byÏsubmitting€to€the€test€or€of€certainlyÏproviding€it€by€refusing€to€submit.€€ItÏwould€be€fundamentally€unfair€to€put€aÏdefendant€in€such€a€"damned€if€he€does,Ïdamned€if€he€doesn't"€position.€€TheÏLegislature€provided€a€definite€choice,Íand€we€cannot€render€a€decision€whichÏwould€make€that€choice€an€illusory€one.ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓÓà àIn€òòOpinion€of€the€Justices€to€the€Senateóó,€591€N.E.2dÏ1073€(Mass.€1992),€the€Supreme€Judicial€Court€of€MassachusettsÏproperly€and€realistically€analyzed€the€effect€of€a€similarÏconstitutional€provision€on€a€similar€statute.€€That€courtÏheld€that€a€proposed€statute,€making€a€defendant's€refusal€toÏsubmit€to€a€blood€or€breath€test€admissible€as€evidence,€wouldÏviolate€the€state€constitutional€privilege€against€self„incrimination.€€The€court€found€that€refusal€evidence€would€beÏtestimonial€in€nature€and€would€compel€the€accused€to€furnishÏevidence€against€himself.€€The€Massachusetts€constitutionalÏprivilege€against€self„incrimination€is€similar€to€Tennessee'sÏin€that€it€provides:€€"No€subject€shall€.€.€.€be€compelled€toÏaccuse,€or€furnish€evidence€against€himself."€€òòId.óó€at€1076Ïn.5.€€Regarding€the€testimonial€nature€of€refusal€evidence,Ïthe€Court€stated:ÌÌÒ 0 ÒÒ p ÒÓÓ€€€€€The€distinction€between€real€orÏphysical€evidence€and€testimonial€orÏcommunicative€evidence€is€not€easily€madeÏin€every€case.€€Courts€which€haveÏconcluded€that€refusal€evidence€was€notÍtestimonial€have€done€so€by€justifying€itsÏrelevance€on€an€issue€not€essential€to€theÏprosecution's€case,€see€òòState€v.€Pineauóó,Ï491€A.2d€1165€(Me.€1985);€òòState€v.€Willisóó,Ï332€N.W.2d€180€(Minn.€1983),€to€explainÏthe€lack€of€test€result€evidence,€or€byÏconcluding€that€the€refusal€evidence€mayÏbe€introduced€because€test€results€areÏadmissible;€òòHill€v.€Stateóó,€366€So.€2d€318Ï(Ala.€1979).€€It€does€not€logicallyÏfollow,€however,€that,€because€testÏresults€are€not€testimonial,€refusalÏevidence€falls€in€the€same€category.€€InÏthe€ordinary€case€a€prosecutor€would€seekÏto€introduce€refusal€evidence€to€show,€andÏwould€argue€if€permitted,€that€aÏdefendant's€refusal€is€the€equivalent€ofÏhis€statement,€"I€have€had€so€much€toÏdrink€that€I€know€or€at€least€suspect€thatÏI€am€unable€to€pass€the€test."€€SeeÏòòWilliford€v.€Stateóó,€653€P.2d€339,€342„343Ï(Alaska.€Ct.€App.€1982).€€An€involuntaryÏstatement€to€that€effect€by€the€defendantÏcould€not€be€used€against€him.€.€.€.€€ItÏfollows,€therefore,€that€evidence€of€aÏperson's€thought€process,€if€offered€toÏshow€that€the€person€had€doubts€about€hisÏability€to€pass€the€test,€would€beÏtestimonial.€€Based€on€this€analysis,Ïevidence€of€a€refusal€to€submit€to€aÏrequested€breathalyzer€test€is€testimonialÏin€nature.ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓÓòòId.óó€at€1077.ÌÌà àRegarding€whether€refusal€evidence€is€compelled,€theÏCourt€stated:ÌÌÒ 0 ÒÒ p ÒÓÓ€€€€€Some€courts€have€reasoned€thatÏrefusal€evidence€may€be€used€because€theirÏanalogous€statutes€do€not€compel€refusal,Ïbut€rather€seek€only€to€encourage€takingÏthe€test.€€Such€statutes€do,€however,Ïcompel€the€accused€to€choose€betweenÏtaking€the€test€and€incurring€a€penalty.€ÏThere€is€compulsion,€therefore,€on€theÏaccused€to€choose€between€twoÏalternatives,€both€of€which€are€capable€ofÏproducing€evidence€against€him.€€TheÏproposed€statute,€therefore,€uses€theÏthreat€of€adverse€testimonial€evidence€asÏa€coercive€tool€to€compel€submission€to€aÏbreathalyzer€test.€€The€accused€is€thusÏplaced€in€a€"Catch„22"€situation:€€takeÏthe€test€and€perhaps€produce€potentiallyÏincriminating€real€evidence;€refuse€andÏhave€adverse€testimonial€evidence€usedÏagainst€him€at€trial.€€Although€some€haveÏsaid€that€the€act€of€refusal€is€not€aÏself„accusation,€òòSouth€Dakota€v.€Nevilleóó,Ï459€U.S.€553,€561€n.€11,€562€n.€13,€103€S.ÏCt.€916,€921€n.€11,€922€n.€13,€74€L.€Ed.Ï2d€748€(1983),€in€our€view€it€is€simplyÏwrong€to€conclude€that€refusal€evidenceÏused€in€the€manner€proposed€is€notÏevidence€furnished€by€the€accused.€ÏTherefore,€such€refusal€evidence€is€bothÏcompelled€and€furnishes€evidence€againstÏoneself.ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓÓòòId.óó€at€1078.ÌÌ€à àFor€these€reasons,€I€would€hold€that€admission€ofÍevidence€of€the€defendant's€refusal€to€submit€to€the€testÏwould€violate€the€Article€I,€Section€9€privilege€against€self„incrimination.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.ÌÌÌ