Court Opinion

ID: 9857916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:07:40.763965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:59:16.840651
License: Public Domain

ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
In my dissent in Kuntz v. State Highway Commissioner, 405 N.W.2d 285 at 290-91 (N.D.1987), I concluded, after reviewing the statutory provisions of, and purposes behind, the Implied Consent Act, that there was no right, statutory or otherwise, to consult with counsel before deciding whether or not to take a chemical test to determine a person’s blood alcohol level. This is consistent with the object of the Implied Consent Act which is “an attempt to reduce the holocaust on our highways, part of which is due to the driver who has imbibed too freely of intoxicating liquor.” Colling v. Hjelle, 125 N.W.2d 453, 459-60 (N.D.1963) (Erickstad, J., dissenting). I therefore concur in the result.'