¶ 5 Oklahoma law requires a valid arrest as necessary to invoke a police officer's right under statute to request submission to chemical tests for blood alcohol. 47 O.S. § 751[ 47-751](A); Appeal of Dungan, 1984 OK 21, 681 P.2d 750; Smith v. State, ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 1984 OK 16, 680 P.2d 365; White v. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety, 1980 OK 21, 606 P.2d 1131. A valid arrest requires a valid stop, and "the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred." Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1772, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996).

Tapp v. Perciful, 2005 OK 49, ¶ 21, 120 P.3d 480, 483; Harkrider v. Posey, 2000 OK 94 ¶ 14, 24 P.2d 821, 828. White v. Okla. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 1980 OK 21, ¶ 6, 606 P.2d 1131, 1132. 47 O.S. 2011 §§ 751-761.

The only remaining question is, as Officer Branham had probable cause to arrest Martinez for APC, could Officer Stevenson then request Martinez to take a blood test? Under Oklahoma's implied consent law, a valid arrest is necessary to authorize a police officer to request submission to a chemical test for blood alcohol. White v. Okla. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 1980 OK 21, ¶ 6, 606 P.2d 1131, 1132. The implied consent statute, 47 O.S.2011 § 751(A)(1), is clear that consent is deemed given upon an arrest for “any offense ... alleged to have been committed while the person was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public roads, ... while under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substance....” Martinez was arrested by Officer Branham, with probable cause, for actual physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated.

The only remaining question is, as OfficerBranham had probable cause to arrest Martinez for APC, could Officer Stevenson then request Martinez to take a blood test? Under Oklahoma's implied consent law, a valid arrest is necessary to authorize a police officer to request submission to a chemical test for blood alcohol. White v. Okla. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 1980 OK 21, ¶ 6, 606 P.2d 1131, 1132. The implied consent statute, 47 O.S.2011 § 751(A)(1), is clear that consent is deemed given upon an arrest for "any offense . . . alleged to have been committed while the person was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public roads, . . . while under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substance . . . ."

¶ 14 However, "[u]nder Oklahoma's Implied Consent Law, a valid arrest is necessary to authorize a police officer to request submission to a chemical test for blood alcohol." Dahl v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2002 OK CIV APP 15, ¶ 9, 38 P.3d 941, 943 (citing White v. Okla. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 1980 OK 21, ¶ 6, 606 P.2d 1131, 1132). The issue before us is whether the university police officer had jurisdiction to stop Ward and make a valid arrest.

¶ 10 Oklahoma law requires, and appellate decisions of this state have consistently recognized, a valid arrest as necessary to invoke a police officer's right under statute to request submission to a test for blood alcohol. 47 O.S. 751(A); Appeal of Dungan, 1984 OK 21, ¶ 12, 681 P.2d 750, 752; Smith, 1984 OK 16, ¶ 3, 680 P.2d at 366; White v. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety, 1980 OK 21, ¶ 6, 606 P.2d 1131, 1132.

¶ 9 Under Oklahoma's Implied Consent Law, a valid arrest is necessary to authorize a police officer to request submission to a chemical test for blood alcohol. White v. Okla. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 1980 OK 21, ¶ 6, 606 P.2d 1131, 1132. State asserts that a valid arrest occurred because (1) Officer Tompkins observed a misdemeanor sufficient to allow him to arrest Dahl pursuant to 47 O.S. 1991 § 16-114[ 47-16-114]; (2) he properly stopped and detained Dahl; and (3) he was authorized to stop Dahl and detain him until Trooper Dickens arrived.

A valid arrest is necessary under the Implied Consent Law, 47 O.S.Supp. 1982 § 751[ 47-751], et seq., before a police officer may request a driver of a motor vehicle to submit to a chemical test for blood alcohol. 47 O.S.Supp. 1982 §§ 751[ 47-751], 754 [ 47-754]; White v. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety, 606 P.2d 1131 (Okla. 1980); Marquardt v. Webb, 545 P.2d 769 (Okla. 1976); Application of Baggett, 531 P.2d 1011 (Okla. 1974). Prior to the amendment of 22 O.S. 1971 § 196[ 22-196], a peace officer's authority to make warrantless misdemeanor arrests for driving under the influence was limited to offenses committed or attempted in his presence.

If, after properly stopping the vehicle, the officer observes a misdemeanor, the subsequent arrest is lawful.White v. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety, 606 P.2d 1131, 1132 (Okla. 1980); Application of Baggett, 531 P.2d 1011, 1019 (Okla. 1974). It is provided by 47 O.S. 1981 § 751[ 47-751] in pertinent part:

ner of Pub. Safety, 368 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985); State v. Goetaski, 209 N.J. Super. 362, 365-366 (App.Div. 198 6) (but cf. State v. Martinez, 260 N.J. Super. 75 [App. Div. 1992]); Wibben v. North Dakota State Hy. Commnr., 413 N.W.2d 329, 331 n. 1 (N.D. 1987); State v. Sarhegyi, 492 N.W.2d 284, 286 (N.D. 1992); State v. Guthmiller, 499 N.W.2d 590, 593 (N.D. 1993) (concurring opinion); Provo City v. Warden, 844 P.2d 360, 363 (Utah Ct. App. 1992); State v. Lambert, 146 Vt. 142, 144 (1985); Barrett v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 196, 200-201 (1993), rev'd on reh'g en banc, 18 Va. App. 773 (1994), rev'd, 250 Va. 243, 247-248 (1995); State v. Chisholm, 39 Wn. App. 864, 867 (1985); State v. DeArman, 54 Wn. App. 621, 626 (1989); State v. Markgraf, 59 Wn. App. 509, 513 (1990). See also (not citing Dunbar) Reeves v. State, 20 Ark. App. 17, 20, 22-24 (1987); People v. Deppert, 83 Ill. App.3d 375, 380-381 (1980); State v. Pinkham, 565 A.2d at 319-320; State v. Oxley, 127 N.H. at 410-411, White v. Oklahoma Dept. of Pub. Safety, 606 P.2d 1131, 1132 (Okla. 1980); Leaper v. State, 753 P.2d 914, 915 (Okla.Crim.App. 1988); State v. Hibler, 92 Or. App. 140, 143 (1988); State v. Anderson, 142 Wis.2d 162, 167-169 (Ct.App. 1987). Cf. United States v. Rodriguez-Morales, 929 F.2d 780, 784-785 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552, 1560-1561 (10th Cir. 1993).