Court Opinion

ID: 9655723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:20:08.783702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:21.399031
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I would affirm the conviction on the ground that the arresting officer had substantially complied with the requirements of the statute that was then in effect. To hold that the failure of an arresting officer to advise a motorist of his right to refuse to consent to a blood test renders the consent invalid is one thing; to hold that an otherwise valid consent is vitiated by the failure to advise a motorist that a revocation hearing will be precluded by a guilty plea entered subsequent to a refusal to consent to a blood test but prior to the holding of the revocation hearing is quite another thing. One can only muse upon the ability of a putatively intoxicated motorist to comprehend a litany of rights so extensive as to require a printed checklist rivaling in length and complexity the pre-takeoff nomenclature found in an airplane cockpit.