{
  "id": 1916816,
  "name": "Billy G. BALLEW v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ballew v. State",
  "decision_date": "1991-05-28",
  "docket_number": "CR 91-81",
  "first_page": "542",
  "last_page": "544",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "305 Ark. 542"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "809 S.W.2d 374"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "524 P.2d 884",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10477355
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/p2d/524/0884-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.E.2d 805",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ohio St.2d 351",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1794977
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ohio-st-2d/42/0351-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 Ariz. 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ariz.",
      "case_ids": [
        1480148
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ariz/149/0385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "789 P.2d 815",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Wash. App. 697",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        1757170
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash-app/57/0697-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ark. App. 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6138460
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/30/0105-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-65-201-207",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-65-203",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 4055,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.896,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06982356886443959
    },
    "sha256": "8a69e3f14c9a6ac21903867337e3bd01fed1c447b069ecf3d5b084b620c52079",
    "simhash": "1:0b2548c77ce8571e",
    "word_count": 674
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:54.224345+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Billy G. BALLEW v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Steele Hays, Justice.\nBilly Ballew was convicted in circuit court of driving while intoxicated. He contends on appeal that the trial court should have ruled that he was entitled to a chemical analysis of his blood, breath, or urine at no expense to him. We reject the argument and affirm the judgment.\nBallew was arrested on February 21, 1990, by Deputy Sheriff A1 Nelson. Officer Nelson testified that he saw a 1983 Chevrolet pickup truck ignore a stop sign and weave back and forth over the center line of the highway. After stopping the vehicle Nelson smelled alcohol and described the driver, Ballew, as too inebriated to perform a field sobriety test and incapable of walking without being supported.\nAt the sheriff\u2019s office Ballew declared he would not submit to any type of test and Nelson informed him that he was in luck because the breathalyzer was not operating. Nelson advised Ballew that he had the right to have a blood test taken at his own expense and that too was refused.\nPrior to trial Ballew moved to suppress any testimony by Nelson regarding Ballew\u2019s alleged intoxication, arguing that Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-65-203 (Supp. 1989) requires that the arresting officer offer a chemical analysis of the blood, breath, urine or other bodily substance of the accused at public expense. That motion was denied and appellant assigns error to the ruling.\nAppellant relies entirely on the language of the Arkansas implied consent law, [Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-65-201\u2014207 (Supp. 1989)], citing such phrases as, a chemical test or tests \u201cshall be administered,\u201d and the law enforcement agency \u201cshall be responsible for all expenses incurred in conducting the tests.\u201d\nWe fully agree that under the statute if a particular law enforcement agency designates that chemical tests will be administered, the agency is responsible for paying any expenses involved. But the statute is equally clear that if it is the accused who requests the tests (in addition to those taken at the behest of the agency), he shall bear the expense. Nowhere in the act do we find the slightest implication that a law enforcement agency which does not intend to rely on chemical analysis of bodily substance, must nevertheless provide such analysis for an accused. In Grayson v. State, 30 Ark. App. 105, 783 S.W.2d 75 (1990), the Court of Appeals rejected appellant\u2019s argument that he was entitled to a blood test at public expense, though no breathalyzer was administered because the machine was not functioning. The Grayson court noted that \u00a7 5-65-204(e)(2) renders the chemical test results of the agency inadmissible if the person tested is not advised of his right to an additional test. There is no proof here that Ballew requested such tests or would have allowed them to be administered. The proof, indeed, was to the contrary.\nIf the appellant\u2019s position were sustained, it would remove the right of a law enforcement agency to rely on other relevant evidence of intoxication, notwithstanding an express provision in the statute permitting the use of such evidence:\n\u00a7 5-65-206(2)(b) (Supp. 1989) reads: The foregoing provisions shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other relevant evidence bearing upon the question whether or not the defendant was intoxicated.\nThe implied consent law was enacted primarily to protect the public from the drinking driver by adopting a balanced procedure for testing bodily substance. Numerous decisions construe similar statutory schemes as permissive rather than mandatory and the wording of our statutes is consonant with those cases. See State v. Woolbright, 57 Wash. App. 697, 789 P.2d 815 (1990); Montano v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 385, 719 P.2d 271 (1986); Kettering v. Baker, 42 Ohio St.2d 351, 328 N.E.2d 805 (1975); Hammer v. Town of Jackson, 524 P.2d 884 (Wyo. 1974).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Steele Hays, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Meurer, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., Elizabeth A. Vines, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Billy G. BALLEW v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 91-81\n809 S.W.2d 374\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 28, 1991\nRobert Meurer, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., Elizabeth A. Vines, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0542-01",
  "first_page_order": 572,
  "last_page_order": 574
}