THE RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THAT AN ADDITIONAL TEST MAY BE OBTAINED.
FURTHERMORE, OKLAHOMA CASE LAW HAS LONG HELD THAT DRIVING IN OKLAHOMA IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT, AND IS THUS SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION. PRICE V. REED, 725 P.2D 1254 (OKL. 1986). THE IMPLIED CONSENT LAW DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT ANY TEST REQUEST BE GIVEN. THE CURRENT ONE IS USED SO AS TO COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
WITH THIS IN MIND, IT APPEARS THAT THE PRESENT IMPLIED CONSENT TEST REQUEST ADEQUATELY INFORMS A LICENSEE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADDITIONAL TEST IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT AN ADDITIONAL QUANTITY OF BREATH OR BLOOD MUST BE TAKEN BY THE TESTING AGENCY AND MUST BE STORED FOR ENOUGH TIME TO ALLOW THE LICENSEE TO REQUEST THAT THE ADDITIONAL SAMPLE BE TESTED.
THEREFORE, IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE PRESENT IMPLIED CONSENT TEST REQUEST IS A VALID REQUEST IN THAT IT ADVISES THE LICENSEE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ADDITIONAL TEST.
(JAMES ROBERT JOHNSON)