Peter Burnett and Daniel C. Ryan v. Municipality of Anchorage, Raymond Roop v. State of Alaska

Good Law
806 F.2d 1447·1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 35164
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 30, 198686-3747California1,971 words

Opinion

Opinion

Anderson, J.

The three appellants seek federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from their state court convictions for refusal to submit to chemical breath tests after being stopped for driving while intoxicated (DWI). The district court, in a well-reasoned decision, 634 F.Supp. 1029 , denied the writs, holding that neither the Fourth nor the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution had been violated. We affirm.

FACTS

The facts are undisputed. Peter Burnett, Daniel Ryan and Raymond Roop were lawfully stopped and arrested on separate occasions for DWI, Burnett and Ryan by Anchorage police officers and Roop by an Alaska state trooper. All three were warned of the implied consent law and the sanctions for refusal to submit to a chemical test of their breath. All three peace fully refused to submit. Burnett and Ryan were charged with violations of the Anchorage Municipal Code for DWI, and for refusing to submit to the chemical test. Roop was charged with violations of Alaska law for DWI, and for refusing to submit to the chemical test.

Burnett and Roop subsequently pled nolo contendere to the refusal charges, preserving under a state procedure their right to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.