Court Opinion

ID: 9697100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:05:50.788385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:29.131729
License: Public Domain

Gibson, J.,
dissenting. I agree that this case is similar in all material respects to State v. Garvey, 157 Vt. 105, 595 A.2d 267 (1991). Nevertheless, because I believe the majority continues to misconstrue 23 V.S.A. § 1202(c), see id. at 107-08, 595 A.2d at 268-69 (Gibson, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.
In doing so, I note the Legislature recently acted to remove all doubt about the extent of a person’s right to counsel prior to deciding whether to take an evidentiary DUI test. 1997, No. 56, § 2 (“The person must make a decision about whether or not to submit to the test or tests at the expiration of the 30 minutes regardless of whether a consultation took place.”).
Accordingly, I would overrule Garvey and reverse the trial court decision. I am authorized to say that Chief Justice Amestoy joins in this dissent.