Court Opinion

ID: 9776848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:46:29.906155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:43.374795
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Judge,
dissenting.
For argument’s sake, I conclude that the operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right, and the administrative revocation of that privilege entails neither Miranda1 warnings nor right to counsel. However, where the administrative revocation is predicated upon a criminal charge entitling the holder to Miranda warnings and counsel, the problem is more acute. An arres-tee, though not required to submit to testing, may (if he fails to submit) suffer an administrative loss of license. Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 186.565. Upon receiving Miranda warnings, the arrestee is confronted with the dilemma of submitting to testing and perhaps jeopardizing his criminal defense, or rejecting and suffering probable administrative harm. Under these circumstances, I think it imperative that arrestees have the advice of counsel if they express a desire. Denial of counsel and resulting administrative loss of license reflect arbitrary governmental power condemned under our Bill of Rights. Ky. Const. § 2.
I would affirm the circuit court.

. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).