Preview:

Salt Lake City v. Reedy, Case No. 20000185-CA, Filed July 6, 2001

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---Salt Lake City, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ricky D. Reedy, Defendant and Appellant. MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20000185-CA FILED July 6, 2001 2001 UT App 213 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Robin W. Reese Attorneys: Francis J. Nielson, Salt Lake City, for Appellant Simarjit Singh Gill and Don M. Wrye, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----Before Judges Bench, Orme, and Thorne. ORME, Judge: Although the trial court, in refusing to suppress the blood-draw evidence, concluded that an arrest of the defendant had occurred and that the requirements of Utah's implied consent law had been satisfied, "'[i]t is well-settled that an appellate court may affirm a trial court's ruling on any proper grounds, even though the trial court relied on some other ground.'" State v. Bredehoft, 966 P.2d 285, 292 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (quoting DeBry v. Noble, 889 P.2d 428, 444 (Utah 1995)), cert. denied, 982 P.2d 88 (Utah 1999). While we affirm the trial court's ruling, we do so on the ground that defendant consented to his blood being drawn. The facts of this case demonstrate that following Officer Hardin's detailed explanation of DUI procedures to defendant, including the possible administrative consequences of refusing to submit to a blood draw, defendant ultimately consented to have his blood drawn. (1) This court has consistently held that once an officer obtains actual consent, the investigation is no longer constrained by the requirements of Utah Code Ann.

Download reedy.pdf

Utah Law