Kirsch, J.
Ruel P. Pedigo, III (“Pedigo”) was convicted of reckless homicide, a Level 5 felony, causing death when operating a motor vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance in the blood as a Level 4 felony, and causing serious bodily injury when operating a motor vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance in the body as a Level 6 felony and was sentenced to an aggregate fifteen-year-sentence. Pedigo appeals his convictions and sentence and raises the following restated issues for our review: I. Whether Indiana Code section 9-30-7-3 permits a law enforcement officer to offer a person more than one portable breath test or chemical test when the officer has reason to believe the person operated a vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident or an accident involving serious bodily injury; II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted Pedigo’s chemical test results into evidence because he asserts that the results were not admissible under Indiana Code section 9-30-6-6; and III. Whether Pedigo’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
We affirm.
I. Authorization for Blood Draw
Pedigo argues that, under Indiana Code section 9-30-7-3, law enforcement was not permitted to offer him a chemical test after he had submitted to a portable breath test, which produced a negative result, when they did not have probable cause for intoxication.
…
In interpreting the statute, we note that section 9-30-7-3(a) clearly states that, when a law enforcement officer has reason to believe that a person operated a vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident or an accident involving serious bodily injury, the officer is required to offer a portable breath test or chemical test to the person. Reading the statute as a whole, it is clear that subsections (a)(1)-(3) set out three circumstances where a law enforcement officer must offer a subsequent chemical test when the officer opts to first offer a portable breath test. Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3(a)(1)-(a)(3). Nothing in these subsections prohibits a law enforcement officer from offering a subsequent chemical test when such circumstances are not present; the subsections merely provide when an officer is required to give a subsequent chemical test. This is especially true when reading subsection (a) in conjunction with subsection (b). Subsection (b) expressly provides that “a law enforcement officer may offer a person more than one (1) portable breath test or chemical test under this section.” Ind. Code § 9-30-7- 3(b).
When reading the statute in its entirety, the legislature clearly intended subsection (a)(2) to compel law enforcement officers not to conclude their investigation when they receive a negative portable breath test result and also have probable cause to believe that the driver is under the influence of something other than alcohol. See Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3(a)(2). In those circumstances, the legislature requires that an officer offer both the portable breath test and the chemical test. However, there is nothing in a plain reading of section 9-30-7-3 that prohibits an officer from offering more than one test following an accident resulting in serious bodily injury or death. In fact, subsection (b) explicitly allows an officer to offer more than one test. Ind. Code § 9-30-7-3(b).
…
We, therefore, conclude that under Indiana Code section 9-30-7-3, a law enforcement officer is permitted to offer a subsequent chemical test to a person who the officer has reason to believe operated a vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident or an accident involving serious bodily injury when the officer has first administered a portable breath test that produces negative results even if the officer does not have probable cause to believe the person is under the influence of a controlled substance or another drug. Here, it is undisputed that Pedigo was involved in an accident that involved serious bodily injury and resulted in a death, and the officer first administered a portable breath test that came back negative. However, even though the officer stated that he did not have probable cause to believe that Pedigo was under the influence of a controlled substance, under Indiana Code section 9-30-7-3, we conclude that the officer was authorized to offer Pedigo a subsequent chemical test, specifically a blood draw in this case.
…
Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.