Court Opinion

ID: 9540255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:14:05.771643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:46.274406
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur. As to Division 1, the results of the test (even though the manner and method of its application are not challenged) must be excluded because the defendant was deprived of potentially helpful evidence provided as a statutory right principally of the driver to *861have a test of his own choosing. The latter test might have contradicted the State’s test. The State cannot insulate the result of its test from the comparative attack afforded by law to persons arrested for drunk driving, in a case where it seeks to use that evidence against the person who is charged with allowing the intoxicated person to drive, any more than it can insulate the result in the drunk driver’s case. When the State chooses to prove the latter case by evidence obtained pursuant to the implied consent law, it must comply with that law.