Court Opinion

ID: 9761809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:55:24.264065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:26.603201
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Doyle:
Under the circumstances of the facts presented in this case, I respectfully dissent from the majority. Once the Appellant had indicated his consent to take the urinalysis test, at the request of the arresting officer, I believe there had to be some reasonable explanation given why the urinalysis test was not administered. That “[t]he hospital was a little unsure of that [giving the urinalysis test]” is not such a reasonable explanation.
A police officer, once having offered a urinalysis test as an alternative to a driver who has a legitimate fear of needles, and having secured the drivers consent, cannot then insist on a blood test, without explanation, knowing that the driver in all probability will refuse the blood test. I would reverse.