Court Opinion

ID: 9705136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:57:42.45044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:08.214331
License: Public Domain

*417ZASTROW, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the North Dakota Supreme Court’s holding in Lund v. Hjelle, 1974, N.D., 224 N.W.2d 552, that:
“ * * * a delay for a reasonable period of time while an arrested person considers or reconsiders a decision whether or not to submit to a chemical test will not frustrate the object of the [implied consent statutes] * * 224 N.W.2d at 557.
The consequences of the decision to consent to refuse to submit to a chemical test are crucial. Since that decision must be made without the counsel of an attorney, family, or friends, there does not appear to be a need for a requirement that a decision once made should be irrevocable.
The conditions established by the North Dakota Supreme Court are reasonably suited to fulfill the purpose of our implied consent laws. The conditions are:
“[W]here * * * one who is arrested for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor first refuses to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood and later changes his mind and requests a chemical blood test, the subsequent consent to take the test cures the prior first refusal when the request to take the test is made within a reasonable time after the prior first refusal; when such a test administered upon the subsequent consent would still be accurate; when testing equipment or facilities are still readily available; when honoring a request for a test, following a prior first refusal, will result in no substantial inconvenience or expense to the police; and when the individual requesting the test has been in police custody and under observation for the whole time since his arrest.” 224 N.W.2d at 557.1
Officer Weiss admitted that had he immediately transported Kotas to the hospital following Kotas’ consent, the blood sample would have been withdrawn only ten to fifteen minutes later than if Kotas had consented at the time of the original request, and within one hour of the time of arrest. He also admitted that the test results would have been accurate, and any difference in test results taken ten to fifteen minutes apart would have been minimal, and that transporting Kotas to the hospital would not have been a substantial inconvenience for him.2
If the objective of the implied consent statutes is “a fair, efficient and accurate system of detection and prevention of drunk driving” and “to obtain the best evidence of blood alcohol content at the time of arrest,” Zidell v. Bright, 1968, 264 Cal.App.2d 867, 71 Cal.Rptr. 111, it would appear that an interpretation which will allow the securing of the test specimen without unreasonable delay would best achieve that objective. It does not appear that an interpretation that makes a refusal irrevocable allows the obtaining of the best evidence of blood alcohol content.
Certainly, the refusal to submit to the test at the scene would not have affected the test results because a blood sample would not have been taken at that time. And what of the continued requests by the officer? Had Kotas consented to a later request, would we allow" revocation of his license if a refusal once given is irrevocable? Not if the objective of obtaining the “best evidence of blood alcohol content” is to be fulfilled. To the contrary, allowing the driver the right to rescind a prior refusal under reasonable conditions would achieve the objective in a manner fair to both the driver and the law enforcement officers.
To hold the refusal irrevocable would in many instances deprive the state, and the driver, of valuable evidence of intoxication, or lack thereof, simply because the driver has made a decision without a chance to adequately reflect upon the alternatives.

. Although I would adopt the rationale of Lund v. Hjelle, 1974, N.D., 224 N.W.2d 552, I do not find the North Dakota Supreme Court’s application of it to the fact situation in that case as correct. See Peterson v. State, S.D., 261 N.W.2d 405, special concurrence filed December 30, 1977.

. The only inconvenience appeared to have been Officer Weiss’ quitting time at 3:45 a.m.