People v.્યુ, 81 N.Y.2d 53 (1993)
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(4)(b) grants a DWI defendant the right to an independent chemical test, but does not impose an affirmative duty on police to assist in obtaining such a test.
Summary
Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated and, after consenting to a breathalyzer test, requested an additional independent blood test. He argued that the police’s failure to assist him in obtaining this independent test violated his rights under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(4)(b), warranting suppression of the breathalyzer results. The New York Court of Appeals held that the statute only grants the right to an independent test, but does not obligate the police to actively assist in securing it, as long as they do not impede the defendant’s efforts. The burden is on the defendant to arrange for the independent test.
Facts
An Ontario County Deputy Sheriff observed the defendant’s vehicle partially off the road with its headlights off. The officer found the defendant walking toward the vehicle, who admitted to driving and drinking. The officer smelled alcohol on the defendant’s breath and observed bloodshot eyes. The defendant failed field sobriety tests. After arrest and Miranda warnings, the defendant consented to a breathalyzer test, which registered .15% BAC. The officer informed the defendant of his right to an independent blood test at his own expense, which the defendant requested. The defendant was immediately arraigned and unable to post bail until the next afternoon. Prior to trial, the defendant claimed the police failed to assist him in obtaining the independent test.
Procedural History
The Town Court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the breathalyzer results and he was convicted of driving while impaired and driving while intoxicated. The County Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the police had no affirmative duty to assist the defendant in obtaining an independent chemical test. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(4)(b), which grants a DWI defendant the right to an independent chemical test, also imposes an affirmative duty on the police to assist the defendant in obtaining that test.
Holding
No, because the statute grants the right to the independent test, but is silent as to any affirmative duties on law enforcement to assist in obtaining it.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that statutory construction should effectuate the Legislature’s intent, giving the plain meaning to the words used. The statute explicitly grants the right to an additional test, but omits any requirement for police assistance. The court stated, “The statutory right is the defendant’s and so is the responsibility to take advantage of it.” While police should not impede a defendant from obtaining an independent test and should provide reasonable assistance like phone access, they have no affirmative duty to gather evidence for the accused. The two-hour time limit for the official breathalyzer test does not apply to the independent test. The court noted that the admissibility of chemical test results under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195 depends only on compliance with § 1194, which was met by the official test in this case. The Court explicitly rejected the argument that the police were required to ensure the independent test was administered within two hours of arrest, noting that the time limit applied only to the official test. The court concluded: “law enforcement personnel are not required to arrange for an independent test or to transport defendant to a place or person where the test may be performed.” The court further clarified that while the police should not impede the defendant’s efforts to obtain the independent test and should offer reasonable assistance (e.g., phone access), they have no duty to actively gather evidence for the defendant.