Case Name: In the Matter of the Suspension of the Driving Privileges of BADR RABBANI, Respondent, v. DRIVER AND MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES DIVISION (DMV), Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2003-04-03
Citations: 187 Or. App. 272
Docket Number: 0112-12778; A118215
Parties: In the Matter of the Suspension of the Driving Privileges of BADR RABBANI, Respondent, v. DRIVER AND MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES DIVISION (DMV), Appellant.
Judges: Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Kistler and Schuman, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 187
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 11,
reversed and remanded with instructions April 3, 2003
In the Matter of the Suspension of the Driving Privileges of BADR RABBANI, Respondent, v. DRIVER AND MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES DIVISION (DMV), Appellant.
0112-12778; A118215
65 P3d 1130
Richard D. Wasserman, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Jon Faraday Strock argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Kistler and Schuman, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Branch (DMV) appeals from a judgment that set aside its suspension of petitioner's driving privileges for his refusal to take a breath alcohol test. We reverse.
On appeal, petitioner raises no issues concerning his arrest or the information that the officer provided before asking him to take the breath test. DMV found that the officer asked petitioner to take a breath test and that he refused. The trial court held that there is not substantial evidence to support DMVs decision. DMV found that petitioner originally agreed to take the test but that, when the "Please Blow" prompt appeared on the machine and the officer again asked him to take the test, he stated "No, I wasn't driving." The officer took that statement as a refusal and did not permit petitioner to take the test when he later asked to do so. The officer's testimony at the administrative hearing provides substantial evidence to support those findings.
We have held that anything substantially short of an unqualified and unequivocal agreement to take the test constitutes a refusal and that, once a motorist refuses, there is no right to change his or her mind. Caldeira v. DMV, 181 Or App 168, 171, 45 P3d 489, rev den, 334 Or 631 (2002). Under that rule and DMVs findings, DMVs order suspending petitioner's driving privileges was correct.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate DMV order suspending driving privileges.