Lundin v. Cohan

Full title: CHRISTOPHER B. LUNDIN, Appellant, v. JENNIFER K. COHAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION…

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: May 5, 2010

C.A. No. 09A-02-007 FSS (Del. Super. Ct. May. 5, 2010)

Opinion

C.A. No. 09A-02-007 FSS.

Submitted: April 16, 2010.

Decided: May 5, 2010.

ORDER

FRED S. SILVERMAN, Judge

Upon [ ] ^_ Appeal From the Court of Common Pleas — AFFIRMED

_ Caption corrected for publication.

1. On appeal from the Division of Motor Vehicles, ¹ the Court of Common Pleas affirmed the revocation of Lundin's driving privileges, Lundin having admittedly refused a blood test. Lundin now appeals the Court of Common Pleas decision.

1 Lundin v. Cohan, 2009 WL 188001 (Del. Com. Pl. Jan. 28, 2009) (Smalls, C.J.).

2. In the Court of Common Pleas, and here, Lundin has insisted that the DMV hearing was flawed because the arresting officer failed to read aloud, at the hearing, the implied consent law notice he read to Lundin at the time Lundin refused the test.

3. The form that the officer read was in evidence. Hence, Lundin's only support, Duonnolo v. Department of Public Safety, ² is distinguishable.

2 C.A. No. 5191 (Del. Super. Dec. 13, 1976) (Taylor, J.).

4. Hicks v. Shahan ³ holds that the officer's reciting the given notice from memory at the DMV hearing is enough.

3 1994 WL 710881 (Del. Super. Nov. 14, 1994) (Lee, J.).

5. Here, the officer submitted the script to the DMV, but failed to recite the dialogue. As a matter of law, that is good enough, too. The Court of Common Pleas held as much, and it was legally correct.

For the foregoing reasons, the January 28, 2009 decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.