Case ID: neb_192/html/0402-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Newton, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Russell P. Twiss, appellant.
    222 N. W. 2d 108
    Filed October 3, 1974.
    No. 39415.
    ■ Fisher & Fisher, for appellant.
    Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Steven C. Smith, for appellee.
    Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Newton, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ.
   Newton, J.

Defendant was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the: influence of alcoholic liquor and subsequently the operator’s license of defendant was revoked for refusal to take a blood, breath, or urine test. The order of revocation was appealed.

The record discloses that the requirements of section 39-727.03 (2), (4), and (5), R. S. Supp., 1972, were complied with and defendant was given the choice of taking a breath, blood, or urine test. Defendant refused to take a test. Defendant insists that after he had refused to take a test, it was incumbent upon the arresting officer to again advise the defendant of the consequences of failing to take the test.

Section 39-727.03 (5), R. S. Supp., 1972, requires that any “person who is required to submit * * * to a chemical blood, breath or urine test * * * shall be advised of the consequences of refusing to submit to such test.” This admonition was given- but we fail to find any statutory requirement that it be repeated after a defendant refuses to take the test. The proposition advanced is without merit.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.