Court Opinion

ID: 9822351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:00:36.09661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:32.215058
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 18] I concur in the result. It seems odd, if not absurd, that a person who agrees to take the test after an advisory which neglected to tell the person that the refusal to take the test is a crime punishable in the same manner as driving under the influence and was told only that it was a crime to refuse was disadvantaged by the advisory. Are we to assume that had the person been given the proper advisory he would have refused to take the test? I understand that had the person refused to take the test and been convicted and punished in the same manner as driving under the influence, the. person could very well have been disadvantaged by the advisory in this instance. Nevertheless, I agree that the Legislature has established a bright line and the statutes leave no room for this Court to engage in a determination of legislative intent or whether or not a person was disadvantaged by an incorrect or incomplete advisory.
[¶ 19] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J. :