Opinion ID: 2333180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Incorrect Information Given To Olson Raises A Due Process Issue.

Text: The State and the court of appeals rely heavily on earlier holdings that the warnings required by [the implied consent statute]... are not elements of the offense. [13] As the State phrases it, [t]he police satisfied the foundation requirement of [the implied consent statute] by informing Olson that his refusal would constitute a misdemeanor. Even though this was inaccurate as to the class of offense, it still unmistakably conveyed to Olson[] that refusal would be a crime. And that is all [the statute] requires. We agree the police satisfied the statutory duty to inform Olson that refusal is a crime, and we agree the State proved the elements of refusal, but this is insufficient to answer the question whether Olson's due process rights were violated when he was given an incorrect warning. [14]