What is a police officer’s responsibility when offering a suspected intoxicated driver a chemical test was at the center of an Indiana Court of Appeals hearing held in Knox Monday. The three-judge panel heard an oral argument in the case of Jacob T. Kingma v. State of Indiana, as part of the “Appeals on Wheels” program.
Kingma twice refused to submit to a blood draw following a traffic stop in Frankfort in August of 2018, which police said put him in violation of Indiana’s Implied Consent law. But the attorney representing Kingma, Rick Martin, argued Monday that the offer of the chemical test wasn’t made correctly.
Martin noted that the officer didn’t mention that the blood draw would be taken at a hospital or another facility with authorized medical personnel. Additionally, rather than taking Kingma to the hospital, the officer took him directly to the jail, where he was asked a second time to submit to the test. Martin argued that the officer should have made it clear that she planned to take Kingma to the hospital if he agreed.
But Deputy Attorney General Sierra Murray, who represented the State Monday, argued that the offer was sufficient to comply with the Implied Consent Law. She said it communicated the specific pieces of information the law required. Murray argued that requiring police to give additional information would shift the burden from the motorist to the State. She said that putting more requirements on officers would hinder the law’s purpose of facilitating the collection of evidence of impaired drivers.
The three judges will discuss the case and issue a written opinion affirming or reversing the trial court’s ruling. That’s expected to be issued within the next couple of months.
Monday’s oral argument was the first held in Starke County. Several Knox and Culver Community Schools students were in attendance. The audience also included State Senator Ed Charbonneau, State Representative Jim Pressel, Starke Circuit Court Judge Kim Hall, Knox City Judge Charles Hasnerl, and other officials.
