State v. City Court of Tucson
Docket: No. 2 CA-CIV 5685
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; August 1, 1986; Arizona; State Appellate Court
The state appeals the superior court’s denial of special action relief concerning John Otto Martin, charged with DUI and exceeding a blood alcohol level of .10. The city court magistrate suppressed the results of Martin's intoxilyzer test because the police officer did not allow him to contact an attorney before deciding to take the test. This suppression ruling contradicts established Arizona law, specifically the precedent set by *Campbell v. Superior Court*, which states that a person does not have the right to consult an attorney before deciding to submit to a blood alcohol test. The superior court incorrectly believed that *State v. Holland* altered this principle; however, *Holland* pertains to a different context involving the private consultation of an attorney during proceedings. The facts of the case reveal that Martin was informed he had no right to an attorney prior to the test, and his request to contact one was denied. This denial was the basis for the suppression ruling. The court emphasized that other facts mentioned by the state were not essential to the decision, reiterating the clarity of the law established in *Campbell*. The ruling is reversed and the case is remanded to the city court with directions to vacate the suppression order. Judges Livermore and Fernandez concur with the decision.