Shin v. Commonwealth , 294 Va. 517 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • PRESENT: All the Justices
    NATHAN LEE SHIN
    OPINION BY
    v. Record No. 170128                                      JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL
    December 28, 2017
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
    John M. Tran, Judge
    Nathan Lee Shin (“Shin”) appeals the circuit court’s ruling that he unreasonably refused
    to submit to a breath test in violation of Code § 18.2-268.3. Shin contends that Virginia’s
    implied consent law (Code §§ 18.2-268.2 and -268.3) imposes an unconstitutional condition
    upon the privilege to drive within the Commonwealth and, therefore, it was reasonable for him to
    refuse to provide a blood or breath sample when he was arrested on suspicion for driving while
    intoxicated (“DWI”). Additionally, he takes issue with the fact that Code § 18.2-268.3 lacks an
    objective definition of what constitutes a reasonable refusal under the statute. Finally, he claims
    that the implied consent law violates Article I, § 8 of the Virginia Constitution.
    I. BACKGROUND
    On August 29, 2015, Shin was detained on suspicion of DWI. Upon arresting Shin, the
    arresting officer demanded that he provide a blood and breath sample. Shin declined, stating that
    he did not believe he was intoxicated. The arresting officer then read a statutorily required form
    (Form DC-233 (rev.7/2005), hereafter the “Implied Consent Declaration”) to Shin. See Code
    § 18.2-268.3(C) (requiring an arresting officer to advise an individual arrested for DWI of the
    implied consent law using “a form provided by the Office of the Executive Secretary of the
    Supreme Court”). 1 The relevant portion of the Implied Consent Declaration stated: “You shall
    submit to a breath test. If the breath test is unavailable or you are physically unable to submit to
    the breath test, a blood test shall be given.” 2 Shin refused to provide a sample and signed a
    “Declaration of Refusal,” which stated that he had been advised by the arresting officer about the
    law requiring that he “permit the taking of a breath sample and/or a blood sample” and the
    penalty for unreasonably refusing to provide such samples.
    Shin was subsequently charged with DWI - second offense, unreasonable refusal of a
    breath or blood test - second offense, and making an improper lane change. Shin was tried in the
    general district court and he was convicted of DWI - second offense, unreasonable refusal of a
    breath or blood test - first offense, and improper lane change. Shin appealed his convictions to
    the circuit court and demanded a jury trial.
    At trial, after the Commonwealth presented its evidence and Shin moved to strike, the
    parties agreed that the jury demand should be waived as to the unreasonable refusal charge
    because that charge involved purely legal questions. The circuit court agreed and took the matter
    under advisement. The jury subsequently acquitted Shin of DWI - second offense, but convicted
    him of the improper lane change charge.
    The parties then submitted opposing briefs on the unreasonable refusal charge. After
    considering the parties’ arguments, the circuit court found Shin’s refusal was unreasonable and,
    1
    In 2017, the General Assembly substantially amended Code § 18.2-268.3. See 2017
    Acts ch. 623. For the purposes of this opinion, however, we will rely on the version of Code
    § 18.2-268.3 in effect at the time the offense occurred.
    2
    In light of the General Assembly’s substantial amendment to Code § 18.2-268.3,
    portions of the Implied Consent Declaration form were modified by the Office of the Executive
    Secretary of the Supreme Court. The language relevant to the present case was not modified.
    2
    therefore, in violation of Code § 18.2-268.3. The circuit court then suspended Shin’s license for
    one year.
    Shin appeals.
    II. ANALYSIS
    On appeal, Shin argues that the circuit court erred in finding that he violated Code § 18.2-
    268.3 for several reasons. Shin contends that the implied consent law violates the
    unconstitutional conditions doctrine and, therefore, he reasonably refused the arresting officer’s
    demand for both a blood and breath sample. He further asserts that Code § 18.2-268.3 is
    unconstitutionally vague. Finally, he claims that the implied consent law violates Article I, § 8
    of the Virginia Constitution by compelling him to provide the Commonwealth with potentially
    incriminatory evidence.
    A. UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS
    In his first two assignments of error, Shin argues that the trial court erred in finding that
    his refusal was unreasonable because Virginia’s implied consent law violates the
    unconstitutional conditions doctrine. According to Shin, the implied consent law conditions his
    driving privileges within the Commonwealth on the waiver of his Fourth Amendment right
    against unreasonable searches. He therefore concludes that it was reasonable for him to refuse to
    waive his rights and provide the blood and breath samples requested by the arresting officer. We
    disagree.
    The unconstitutional conditions doctrine states that:
    a State can not grant a privilege subject to the agreement that the
    grantee will surrender a constitutional right, even in those cases
    where the State has the unqualified power to withhold the grant
    altogether. Where such a condition is imposed upon the grantee,
    he may ignore or enjoin the enforcement of the condition without
    thereby losing the grant.
    3
    City of Alexandria v. Texas Co., 
    172 Va. 209
    , 217, 
    1 S.E.2d 296
    , 299 (1939).
    The rationale underlying this doctrine is simple:
    If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as
    a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender
    of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the
    Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of
    existence.
    Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of Cal., 
    271 U.S. 583
    , 594 (1926).
    The relevant portion of the implied consent law states:
    Any person . . . who operates a motor vehicle upon a
    highway . . . in the Commonwealth shall be deemed thereby, as a
    condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of
    his blood, breath, or both blood and breath taken for a chemical
    test to determine the alcohol, drug, or both alcohol and drug
    content of his blood, if he is arrested . . . within three hours of the
    alleged offense.
    Code § 18.2-268.2(A) (emphasis added).
    Shin’s argument focuses entirely on the portion of the implied consent law that
    conditions the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the operator’s consent to provide a blood
    sample. He claims that, because the Fourth Amendment requires police to get a warrant to draw
    a blood sample, 3 the implied consent law cannot condition his driving privileges upon consent to
    provide a blood sample, as such a condition requires him to waive his Fourth Amendment
    rights. 4 Therefore, according to Shin, under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, it was
    reasonable for him to ignore the arresting officer’s demand for a blood sample.
    3
    See Missouri v. McNeely, 
    569 U.S. 141
    , 152 (2013) (“In those drunk-driving
    investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can
    be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment
    mandates that they do so.”)
    4
    Notably, Shin takes no issue with regard to the fact that our implied consent law also
    conditions the operation of a motor vehicle within the Commonwealth on the consent to provide
    a breath sample. Nor could he, as such a condition does not involve the waiver of a
    4
    It is important to note, however, that the operation of a motor vehicle within the
    Commonwealth is not conditioned solely upon the operator’s consent to provide a blood sample;
    it is conditioned upon the operator consenting to providing a blood sample or a breath sample or
    both a blood and a breath sample. Code § 18.2-268.2(A). The fact that Code § 18.2-268.2(A) is
    written in the disjunctive is important because the Supreme Court of the United States has
    expressly held that “the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests
    for drunk driving.” Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ___, ___, 
    135 S. Ct. 2160
    , 2184 (2016).
    Accordingly, conditioning driving privileges on consent to provide a breath sample is, by
    definition, not an unconstitutional condition. Thus, the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
    could only apply in the present case if the record demonstrates that Shin’s refusal was based on
    the arresting officer’s demand for a blood sample, and not his demand for a breath sample.
    Recognizing this, Shin focuses on the fact that the arresting officer purportedly demanded
    both a blood and a breath test. Shin claims that, due to the conjunctive nature of the demand, the
    arresting officer was demanding both a blood sample and a breath sample. Shin posits that this
    all-or-nothing approach by the arresting officer allowed him to reasonably refuse to provide any
    sample, as the officer did not have a warrant requiring him to submit a blood sample. We note,
    however, that Shin’s argument is based on a narrow reading of the record, that is devoid of any
    context. Notably, Shin’s interpretation of the record focuses entirely on the portion of the
    written statement of the facts made part of the record pursuant to Rule 5:11(e), the relevant
    portion of which states that “[t]he arresting police officer demanded a blood and breath test from
    constitutional right. See Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ___, ___, 
    136 S. Ct. 2160
    , 2184
    (2016) (holding that “the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests
    for drunk driving.”).
    5
    [Shin], first orally, and then by means of reading the Implied Consent [D]eclaration.” Absent
    any additional context, it would appear that Shin is correct and the arresting officer did request a
    sample of both blood and breath.
    However, when this statement is viewed in conjunction with the Implied Consent
    Declaration, the actual nature of the arresting officer’s demand becomes readily apparent. The
    Implied Consent Declaration states: “You shall submit to a breath test. If the breath test is
    unavailable or you are physically unable to submit to a breath test, a blood test shall be given.” 5
    Thus, when viewed in the proper context, it is clear that the arresting officer did not demand both
    a blood and breath sample. Instead, the officer’s actual demand was for a breath sample, and any
    demand for a blood sample was, at best, conditioned upon Shin’s inability to provide a breath
    sample or the arresting officer’s inability to take a breath sample. As neither of these conditions
    were met, it cannot be said that there was an actual demand for a blood sample in the present
    case. Accordingly, we do not reach the question of whether the unconstitutional conditions
    doctrine applies to the portion of the implied consent law that addresses blood samples. 6
    B. VOID FOR VAGUENESS
    Shin next argues that Code § 18.2-268.3 is unconstitutionally vague because it does not
    provide a fixed, objective legal standard for determining when a refusal is reasonable. He claims
    that the lack of such an objective standard makes it impossible for an individual to determine in
    advance whether his refusal to provide the required sample will be deemed reasonable or
    5
    The operative language of the Declaration of Refusal, which Shin signed
    contemporaneous with his refusal, is virtually identical to the language in the Implied Consent
    Declaration.
    6
    Similarly, we do not address whether the nature of the punishment has any bearing on
    the application of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine to a blood draw under the implied
    consent law.
    6
    unreasonable. This, according to Shin, indicates that the reasonableness of a refusal is entirely
    subjective, which, in turn, results in arbitrary enforcement.
    “[S]tatutes are not automatically invalidated as vague simply because difficulty is found
    in determining whether certain marginal offenses fall within their language.” United States v.
    National Dairy Prods. Corp., 
    372 U.S. 29
    , 32 (1963). Rather, it has been recognized that “[v]oid
    for vagueness simply means that criminal responsibility should not attach where one could not
    reasonably understand that his contemplated conduct is proscribed.” 
    Id. at 32-33.
    The Supreme
    Court of the United States has explained that a law is unconstitutionally vague “if it is so vague
    and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits or leaves judges
    and jurors free to decide, without any legally fixed standards, what is prohibited and what is not
    in each particular case.” Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 
    382 U.S. 399
    , 402-03 (1966).
    By arguing that Code § 18.2-268.3 is unconstitutionally vague, Shin is raising a facial
    constitutional challenge to the statute, which this Court reviews de novo. Toghill v.
    Commonwealth, 
    289 Va. 220
    , 227, 
    768 S.E.2d 674
    , 678 (2015).
    Facial challenges are disfavored because they create a risk of
    “premature interpretation of statutes on the basis of factually
    barebones records”; they “run contrary to the fundamental
    principle of judicial restraint that courts should neither anticipate a
    question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of
    deciding it nor formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than
    is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied,” and
    they invalidate an entire law that was passed through the
    democratic process.
    
    Id. at 227-28,
    768 S.E.2d at 678 (quoting Washington State Grange v. Washington State
    Republican Party, 
    552 U.S. 442
    , 450 (2008) (some internal quotation marks omitted)).
    Before a litigant can mount a successful facial challenge to a statute, that litigant must
    first show “that the statute in question is unconstitutional as applied to him.” 
    Id. at 228,
    768
    S.E.2d at 678. “[I]f a statute is constitutional as applied to a litigant, he or she lacks standing to
    7
    assert a facial constitutional challenge to it, and the statute is not facially unconstitutional
    because it has at least one constitutional application.” 
    Id. Thus, before
    we can address whether
    Code § 18.2-268.3 is unconstitutionally vague, we must first determine whether the statute would
    be unconstitutional as applied to Shin.
    In determining the sufficiency of the notice provided by a statute, the statute “must of
    necessity be examined in the light of the conduct with which a defendant is charged.” National
    Dairy 
    Prods., 372 U.S. at 33
    . Therefore, because Shin’s argument is that Code § 18.2-268.3
    lacks an objective standard for determining whether a refusal is reasonable, in order to have
    standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute, Shin must first establish that his reason
    for refusing to take the breath test was objectively reasonable. Under the facts of this case, he
    has failed to meet this burden.
    Here, the record demonstrates that Shin refused to take the breath test because “he did not
    believe he was intoxicated and should not have been subjected to such tests.” Such a belief is
    entirely subjective. Indeed, this Court has expressly held that “a driver’s subjective belief that he
    was not under the influence of alcohol is not a reasonable basis for refusing the test.” Cash v.
    Commonwealth, 
    251 Va. 46
    , 50, 
    466 S.E.2d 736
    , 738 (1996). As we explained in Cash, the
    entire purpose of a breath test is to objectively prove or disprove the sobriety of the individual.
    
    Id. at 52,
    466 S.E.2d at 739 (“The chemical analysis of one’s blood provides a scientifically
    accurate method of determining whether a person is intoxicated; it protects one who may appear
    to be intoxicated when, in fact, the individual is sober.”).
    Moreover, it cannot be said that there is no objective standard for determining when a
    refusal is reasonable. Notably, this Court has provided an illustration of such an objectively
    reasonable refusal: where a person’s health would be endangered by the test. See 
    id. at 50,
    466
    8
    S.E.2d at 738 
    (citing Deaner v. Commonwealth, 
    210 Va. 285
    , 293, 
    170 S.E.2d 199
    , 204 (1969));
    see also Bailey v. Commonwealth, 
    215 Va. 130
    , 131, 
    207 S.E.2d 828
    , 829 (1974). Thus, the
    public is not, as Shin insists, unaware of what constitutes a reasonable refusal, because our case
    law provides an explicit example. See generally Flannery v. Norfolk, 
    216 Va. 362
    , 366, 
    218 S.E.2d 730
    , 733 (1975).
    As Shin failed to offer an objectively reasonable basis for refusing to provide a breath
    sample, he has necessarily failed to establish that Code § 18.2-268.3 was unconstitutional as
    applied to him. Accordingly, Shin lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute.
    Further, because there is at least one constitutional application of Code § 18.2-268.3, Shin’s
    facial constitutional challenge also fails.
    C. ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 OF THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION
    Finally, Shin argues that the implied consent law violates Article I, § 8 of the Virginia
    Constitution because it compels him to provide police with the evidence that may be used to
    establish his guilt. Shin relies on the plain language of Article I, § 8 of the Virginia Constitution,
    which explicitly states that no individual shall “be compelled in any criminal proceeding to give
    evidence against himself.” According to Shin, a blood or breath sample is evidence under
    Article I, § 8 of the Virginia Constitution, as such samples are ultimately used to determine an
    individual’s blood alcohol content and, therefore, Shin cannot be compelled to provide such
    samples.
    Shin acknowledges that this Court has previously addressed this issue and come to the
    opposite conclusion in Walton v. City of Roanoke, 
    204 Va. 678
    , 
    133 S.E.2d 315
    (1963).
    However, he asserts that Walton was wrongly decided because the Court relied extensively on
    the Fifth Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States. According to
    9
    Shin, the protection provided by the Fifth Amendment is much narrower than that provided by
    Article I, § 8. He notes that the Fifth Amendment uses the term “witness” and, therefore, its
    protection “does not extend beyond testimonial compulsion.” 
    Walton, 204 Va. at 682
    , 133
    S.E.2d at 318. Article I, § 8, on the other hand, uses the term “evidence.” As testimony is one
    form of evidence, Shin insists that Article I, § 8 must encompass much broader protection. We
    disagree.
    Walton does not, as Shin insists, narrow the scope of Article I, § 8 to fit within the
    confines of the Fifth Amendment. Rather, the Supreme Court of the United States expressly
    broadened the scope of the Fifth Amendment to encompass the broader protections against self-
    incrimination guaranteed by various state constitutions, including Virginia’s.
    [A]s the manifest purpose of the constitutional provisions, both of
    the States and of the United States, is to prohibit the compelling of
    testimony of a self-criminating kind from a party or a witness, the
    liberal construction which must be placed upon constitutional
    provisions for the protection of personal rights would seem to
    require that the constitutional guaranties, however differently
    worded, should have as far as possible the same interpretation; and
    that where the constitution, as in the cases of Massachusetts and
    New Hampshire, declares that the subject shall not be “compelled
    to accuse or furnish evidence against himself,” such a provision
    should not have a different interpretation from that which belongs
    to constitutions like those of the United States and of New York,
    which declare that no person shall be “compelled in any criminal
    case to be a witness against himself.” . . . It is a reasonable
    construction, we think, of the constitutional provision, that the
    witness is protected “from being compelled to disclose the
    circumstances of his offence, the sources from which, or the means
    by which, evidence of its commission, or of his connection with it,
    may be obtained, or made effectual for his connection, without
    using his answers as direct admissions against him.” Emery’s
    Case, 
    107 Mass. 172
    , 182 (Mass. 1871)
    Counselman v. Hitchcock, 
    142 U.S. 547
    , 584-85 (1892) (quoting Emery’s Case, 
    107 Mass. 172
    ,
    182 (Mass. 1871)). See also Schmerber v. California, 
    384 U.S. 757
    , 761 n.6 (1966).
    10
    It is further worth noting that Shin’s argument divorces the term “evidence” from the
    context in which it is used. Article I, § 8 does not, as Shin insists, protect an individual from
    having to give incriminatory evidence. Rather, by its plain language, Article I, § 8 only protects
    an individual from being compelled to “give evidence against himself.” In other words, an
    individual cannot be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence.
    The distinction is subtle, but important. Self-incriminating evidence is testimonial or
    communicative of the individual’s thoughts, whereas incriminatory evidence is not. See
    
    Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 765
    (holding that “blood test evidence, although an incriminating
    product of compulsion, was neither petitioner’s testimony nor evidence relating to some
    communicative act or writing by the petitioner” and, therefore, “it was not inadmissible on
    privilege grounds.”). As this Court recognized long ago, if Article I, § 8 applied to protect an
    individual from having to provide any incriminatory evidence, “then no one accused of crime
    could be compelled to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, or the routine police ‘line up’ for
    identification, which are everywhere admitted to be proper.” Owens v. Commonwealth, 
    186 Va. 689
    , 702, 
    43 S.E.2d 895
    , 901 (1947). A breath test, like a blood test, is not testimonial; it does
    not communicate anything related to an individual’s thoughts or motivations. Accordingly, the
    implied consent law does not implicate the protections encompassed by Article I, § 8 of the
    Virginia Constitution.
    III. CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the decision of the circuit court.
    Affirmed.
    11