State v. Geren

An officer's reading of the statutory rights and consequences of refusing to submit to blood, breath, or urine testing does not render a defendant's consent to such testing involuntary; telling a defendant that his refusal may be used against him is not unconstitutional.

The state appealed an order suppressing evidence resulting from the warrantless testing of defendant's urine. Defendant was pulled over for driving under the influence of intoxicants and was arrested after failing a field sobriety test. Defendant passed a breath test and was subsequently read the DMV Implied Consent Rights and Consequences Section 1 Paragraphs (a) through (i) which informed defendant of the legal consequences of refusing a blood, breath, or urine test. The trial court relied on State v. Machuca and State v. Moore to conclude that defendant's consent to the urine testing was involuntary because it was obtained after he had received statutory implied consent warnings. During the pendancy of this appeal, the Supreme Court's decided Moore II. The court in Moore II concluded that an officer's reading of the statutory rights and consequences of refusing to submit to blood, breath, or urine testing does not render a defendant's consent to such testing involuntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court held that telling a defendant that his refusal may be used against him is also not unconstitutional. Under this new decision, the testing of defendant's urine after he was read his statutory rights and consequences did not violate Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. Reversed and remanded.