[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]
The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 6321 November 8, 1985 CHILDREN AND MINORS: Consent for breathalyzer and/or chemical test of minor operating a motor vehicle MOTOR VEHICLES: Implied consent for a chemical test of a minor A minor operating a motor vehicle is considered to have consented to a chemical test of his or her blood, breath, or urine. A police officer is not required to secure the consent of a parent in order to administer a chemical test to a minor operating a motor vehicle. Honorable Dan L. DeGrow State Senator Capitol Building Lansing, Michigan 48909 You have requested my opinion on two questions relating to the implied consent statute: '1. In reference to a minor who is stopped and suspected of being a drunk driver, does the minor have the ability to make a decision in reference to consenting to submitting himself to a breathalyzer and/or blood test? '2. Is the police officer that is making the stop and/or arrest obligated to notify the parents to get their consent so that the minor can take the breathalyzer and/or blood test?' MCL 257.625c; MSA 9.2325(3), provides in part: '(1) A person who operates a vehicle upon a public highway or other place open to the general public, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, in the state is considered to have given consent to chemical tests of his or her blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the amount of alcohol or presence of a controlled substance or both in his or her blood if: (3) The person is arrested for a violation of section 625(1) or (2) or 625b, or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 625(1) or (2) or 625b.' [Emphasis added.] MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325 prohibits the operation of a vehicle when the operator is under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or a controlled substance or when, due to the consumption of an intoxicating liquor and/or a controlled substance, the operator's ability to operate the vehicle is visibly impaired. The rationale for these sections, and the provision for implied consent to a chemical test, is the reduction of the carnage on the highways by preventing intoxicated persons from driving. Wolney v Secretary of State, 77 Mich App 61, 68-69; 257 NW2d 677 (1977), lv den, 402 Mich 877 (1978), citing Collins v Secretary of State, 384 Mich 656, 668; 187 NW2d 423 (1971). See also, Morrow v State, 303 A2d 633 (Del, 1973). MCL 257.40; MSA 9.1840, defines the term 'person' for the purposes of the Michigan Vehicle Code to mean, inter alia, 'every natural person,' which clearly includes minors. Additionally, MCL 257.625c(2); MSA 9.2325(3)(2), specifies the only persons not considered to have consented to a chemical test: Those persons afflicted with hemophilia, diabetes, or a condition requiring the use of an anticoagulant under the direction of a physician are deemed not to have consented to the withdrawal of blood. Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the exclusion of these named persons from the provisions of MCL 257.625c(1); MSA 9.2325(3)(1), implies that all other persons, including minors, are deemed to have consented to the chemical tests. See, Sebewaing Industries, Inc v Village of Sebewaing, 337 Mich 530, 545; 60 NW2d 444 (1953). Additionally, the strong social policies supporting these drunk driving statutes and their implied consent provisions have been held sufficient to permit authorized persons to perform a chemical test on a person who is unconscious and incapable of consenting, or withholding consent, to such a test. Breithaupt v Abram, 352 US 432; 77 S Ct 408; 1 L Ed 2d 448 (1957), Morrow v State, supra, State v Trujillo, 85 NM 208; 510 P2d 1079 (1973). It is my opinion, therefore, that a minor is considered to have given consent to a chemical test of his or her blood, breath, or urine in accordance with the provisions of MCL 257.625c; MSA 9.2325(3). In response to your second question, since minors are deemed to have consented to the chemical tests provided for in MCL 257.625c; MSA 9.2325(3), there is no requirement that the police officer obtain parental consent prior to administering a test. It should be noted, however, that MCL 712A.14; MSA 27.3178(598.14), requires an officer who has taken a juvenile into custody to forthwith notify the parent or parents, guardian, or custodian, if they can be found within the county. It is my opinion in answer to your second question that a police officer is not required to secure the consent of a parent in order to administer a chemical test to a minor operating a motor vehicle. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General
[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]