Case Name: In the Matter of the Suspension of the Driving Privileges of: SHIELDS, Respondent, v. MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1986-07-16
Citations: 80 Or. App. 314
Docket Number: A8412-07104; CA A35255
Parties: In the Matter of the Suspension of the Driving Privileges of: SHIELDS, Respondent, v. MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION, Appellant.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 80
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted November 13, 1985,
reversed July 16, 1986
In the Matter of the Suspension of the Driving Privileges of: SHIELDS, Respondent, v. MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION, Appellant.
([ AXXXX-XXXXX ]; CA A35255)
722 P2d 36
Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
John Henry Hingson III, Oregon City, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The Motor Vehicles Division appeals from the judgment of the circuit court reversing the administrative suspension of petitioner's driving privileges after he registered above .08 percent blood alcohol content on a police administered breath test. The trial court held that the suspension was invalid, because petitioner was not informed of his right to obtain an independent chemical test if he took the breath test and registered less than .08 percent, of his right to an independent chemical test of his breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol content of his blood and of his right to an independent chemical test to determine the presence of a controlled substance in his person.
The advice given petitioner was the same as that given in Wimmer v. MVD, 75 Or App 287, 706 P2d 182, rev den 300 Or 367 (1985). Petitioner was informed of his right to independent tests to determine the blood alcohol content of his blood if he registered .08 percent or more. Because he registered more than .08 on the breath test, he could not have been prejudiced by the advice. We reverse and reinstate the order of suspension. Wimmer v. MVD, supra.
Reversed; order reinstated.
The advice reads:
"IF YOU TAKE THE BREATH TEST and the instrument shows your blood alcohol level as .08% or higher, you are considered to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor. In that case:
"1. You may have a reasonable opportunity to have a doctor, licensed nurse, qualified technician, chemist, or other qualified person of your choosing, give you a chemical test or tests to determine the alcohol content of your blood. This test is in addition to the breath test given to you by a police officer. You must pay for any test given at your request."