Ernie Charles Metzner, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee — Hart, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Hart dissented from the majority's treatment of the Arkansas refusal statute, maintaining that its plain language prohibited any chemical test after a driver's refusal, including a test obtained through a warrant. She reasoned that the statute reflected legislative limits on government intrusion and that constitutional reasonableness depends in part on the seriousness of the offense. Justice Wynne, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed that the blood-test evidence should have been suppressed but would have affirmed the convictions because the error was harmless in light of other evidence of intoxication.