Source: http://dui.attorney/3605-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:19:04+00:00

Document:
60-6,197. Driving under influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs; implied consent to submit to chemical test; when test administered; refusal; advisement; effect; violation; penalty.
(5) Any person who is required to submit to a chemical blood, breath, or urine test or tests pursuant to this section shall be advised that refusal to submit to such test or tests is a separate crime for which the person may be charged. Failure to provide such advisement shall not affect the admissibility of the chemical test result in any legal proceedings. However, failure to provide such advisement shall negate the state’s ability to bring any criminal charges against a refusing party pursuant to this section.
Operator’s license, assessment of points and revocation, see sections 60-497.01, 60-498, and 60-4,182 et seq.
The validity of a charge for refusing to submit to a chemical test under subsection (3) of this section depends upon the State’s showing a valid arrest under subsection (2). If the arrest was invalid because the police officers lacked probable cause, a conviction for refusing to submit to a chemical test is invalid. State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500, 805 N.W.2d 290 (2011).
Any person arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol may be directed by an officer to submit to a chemical test to determine the concentration of alcohol in that person’s body. Snyder v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 274 Neb. 168, 736 N.W.2d 731 (2007).
An arrested motorist refuses to submit to a chemical test when the motorist’s conduct, demonstrated under the circumstances confronting the officer requesting the chemical test, justifies a reasonable person’s belief that the motorist understood the officer’s request for a test and manifested a refusal or unwillingness to submit to the requested test. Betterman v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 273 Neb. 178, 728 N.W.2d 570 (2007).
A refusal to submit to a chemical test occurs within the meaning of subsection (4) of this section when the licensee, after being asked to submit to a test, so conducts himself as to justify a reasonable person in the requesting officer’s position in believing that the licensee understood that he was being asked to submit to a test and manifested an unwillingness to take it. State v. Beerbohm, 229 Neb. 439, 427 N.W.2d 75 (1988).
The choice of whether one’s blood or urine shall be tested for determination of alcohol content belongs to the licensee; a licensee who, upon the request of a law enforcement officer to do so, refuses to specify which fluid he or she will produce for such testing has refused to submit to a chemical test in violation of subsection (4) of this section. State v. Beerbohm, 229 Neb. 439, 427 N.W.2d 75 (1988).
It is established that as a condition precedent to a valid request by an officer to submit to a chemical test under the implied consent law, the arresting officer must have “reasonable grounds” to believe that the licensee was either driving a motor vehicle or in actual physical control of same while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Larson v. Jensen, 228 Neb. 799, 424 N.W.2d 352 (1988).
Anything less than an unqualified, unequivocal assent to an officer’s request to submit to a chemical test constitutes a refusal. State v. Medina, 227 Neb. 736, 419 N.W.2d 864 (1988); Clontz v. Jensen, 227 Neb. 191, 416 N.W.2d 577 (1987).
A refusal to submit to a chemical test occurs within the meaning of the implied consent law when the licensee, after being asked to submit to a test, so conducts himself as to justify a reasonable person in the requesting officer’s position in believing that the licensee understood he was being asked to submit to a test and manifested an unwillingness to take it. Pollard v. Jensen, 222 Neb. 521, 384 N.W.2d 640 (1986).
Justifiable refusal to take a body fluids test depends on some illegal or unreasonable aspect of the request to submit, the test itself, or both. A conditional refusal is a refusal under Nebraska’s implied consent law. A motor vehicle driver is not entitled to consult a lawyer before submitting to a body fluids test because the suspension of a driver’s license which results from refusal is a remedial, not strictly punitive, measure. Bapat v. Jensen, 220 Neb. 763, 371 N.W.2d 742 (1985).
The revocation of a motorist’s license to operate a motor vehicle for his refusal to take test under this section on the ground that he has been denied the services of legal counsel is not a deprivation of a constitutional right. Rusho v. Johns, 186 Neb. 131, 181 N.W.2d 448 (1970).
Test under this section is not required to be delayed at request of arrested motorist until he be permitted to contact legal counsel. State v. Oleson, 180 Neb. 546, 143 N.W.2d 917 (1966). “Chemical test or tests” may refer to a test conducted with chemicals. However, the term also encompasses a test that determines the chemical composition of a person’s blood, breath, or urine. State v. Crabtree, 3 Neb. App. 363, 526 N.W.2d 688 (1995).
Subsection (2) of this section, previously codified at subsection (2) of section 39-669.08, does not require and section 60-6,204, previously codified at section 39-669.14, was interpreted as not requiring a valid preliminary breath test as a prerequisite to chemical testing of a person arrested for driving under the influence. In this section, “chemical test,” as previously codified at section 39-669.08, was interpreted to be a test to determine the body fluid levels of a certain chemical, as well as a test utilizing chemicals. State v. Cash, 3 Neb. App. 319, 526 N.W.2d 447 (1995).
One cannot evade the effect of this section simply by repeatedly screaming, while the implied consent form is read to him or her, that he or she does not understand. For purposes of enhancement, a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel may not be inferred from a defendant’s pro se appearance at trial in a prior conviction. At a minimum, a sufficiently complete checklist or other docket entry may be used to establish a valid waiver of counsel as to prior convictions for enhancement purposes. State v. Green, 238 Neb. 328, 470 N.W.2d 736 (1991).
Implied Consent Law as amended in 1971 does not involve compulsion within Fifth Amendment; is constitutional; and penalties are as provided in section 39-727, 1971 Supp. State v. Manley, 189 Neb. 415, 202 N.W.2d 831 (1972).
Drawing of blood sample by physician who had been directed to act as coroner’s physician from body of fatally injured passenger in automobile did not violate prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and result of tests performed by competent chemist using accepted procedures and facilities were admissible. Gardner v. Meyers, 491 F.2d 1184 (8th Cir. 1974).
A sentencing court, as part of its judgment of conviction under the implied consent law, in addition to ordering the convicted person not to drive any vehicle in the state for any purpose for 6 months, shall order that the operator’s license of such person be revoked for a like period. The proscription that there can be no revocation of one’s driver’s license and operating privileges if the refusal to submit to a chemical test is reasonable under the circumstances contained in section 39-669.16 (transferred to section 60-498.02), relates only to administrative license revocations by the Director of Motor Vehicles. In a criminal proceeding, however, the inquiry centers on the existence of reasonable grounds for the arresting officer to believe that an operator was driving while under the influence of alcohol. State v. Boyd, 242 Neb. 144, 493 N.W.2d 344 (1992).
Subsection (4)(a) of this section and section 39-669.07(b) (transferred to section 60-6,196) require that the relevant periods of revocation of one’s operator’s license not run concurrently with any jail term imposed. Revocation of one’s operator’s license for a period of 180 days does not fulfill the requirement of subsection (4)(a) of this section that revocation be for a period of 6 months. State v. Contreras, 236 Neb. 455, 461 N.W.2d 562 (1990).
A driver is not entitled to consult with an attorney before submitting to a chemical test under the implied consent law, nor is a delay in the test required due to a driver’s request to consult with an attorney. Fulmer v. Jensen, 221 Neb. 582, 379 N.W.2d 736 (1986).
On appeal to district court from order of Director of Motor Vehicles under section 39-669.16 (transferred to section 60-498.02) revoking operator’s license, the burden is on licensee to establish ground for reversal. Mackey v. Director of Motor Vehicles, 194 Neb. 707, 235 N.W.2d 394 (1975).
Procedural due process in connection with hearing as to reasonableness of refusal to submit to test was not violated by fact the notice thereof specified the director’s office as the place of hearing but the hearing was held in a different room in the same building and party was advised of the change when he appeared in the director’s office. Atkins v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 192 Neb. 791, 224 N.W.2d 535 (1974).
A qualified or conditional consent is not sanctioned nor is a dissent on ground party has taken medicine and doesn’t know what effect it will have. Doran v. Johns, 186 Neb. 321, 182 N.W.2d 900 (1971).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.