Police power clarified on blood-alcohol test

Thursday, May 12, 2005 | 11:06 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Law enforcement officers may consider many factors in determining if a motorist should be ordered to take a blood-alcohol test, the Nevada Supreme Court said today.

The court rejected the appeal of John K. Wright, whose driver's license was revoked by the state Department of Motor Vehicles after he failed his blood-alcohol examination after his car rear-ended another vehicle in Henderson in January 2002.

Wright maintained that a prior Supreme Court opinion allowed an officer to require a test only if the officer smelled alcohol on the individual's breath and the individual had bloodshot eyes.

In this case, Wright said he did not have bloodshot eyes and the test should not have been administered. His blood alcohol content showed 0.23; the legal limit at that time was 0.10. It has been reduced to 0.08.

The officer who investigated the accident smelled alcohol on Wright, who admitted he had four drinks. The officer also conducted other roadside tests before taking Wright in for a blood sample.

The court said, "An officer may consider many other factors when determining whether reasonable grounds exist for an evidentiary test, even when a person does not have bloodshot eyes or smell of alcohol."

It said its prior decision in a blood alcohol test case "did not in any way limit the factors that officers may use to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is impaired."