Court Opinion

ID: 9514036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:43:40.654579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:10.251940
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 13] In our recent case of Peterson v. Ziegler, 2008 ND 115, ¶¶ 12-14, 751 N.W.2d 201, the driver similarly claimed that because the arresting officer had not recited the implied consent advisory prior to a blood draw, the blood test results should have been suppressed. This Court rejected that claim, holding that the implied consent advisory serves the purpose of informing the person of the consequences of refusing to take a chemical test. Id. at ¶ 13. Wflien a person submits to the blood-alcohol test, the person is not sub*706ject to the consequences of refusal and therefore is not harmed by the arresting officer’s failure to repeat the implied consent advisory. Id.
[¶ 14] DALE V. SANDSTROM