Court Opinion

ID: 9724015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:41:43.321015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:54.408601
License: Public Domain

KLAPHAKE, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
After receiving the advisory, Christiansen told the officer that he was not from the area, that he did not know any attorneys, and that he did not know whom to call. Chris-tiansen then asked to call his parents. The total time lapse between the advisory and Christiansen’s agreement to testing was some 23 minutes.
I believe this case is controlled by State v. Karau, 496 N.W.2d 416 (Minn.App.1993). There, the driver said that “he wanted to call his parents only to get the name and telephone number of an attorney.” Id. at 418. This court held that a driver, in exercising the limited right to counsel, may contact a family member for such information so long as the administration of the test is not unreasonably delayed. Id. at 418-19. Here, the officer improperly refused to allow Christian-sen to call his parents for information about an attorney where the requested call would not have caused any unreasonable delay in testing. See id. at 419 (47 minute delay not unreasonable). In my opinion, the officer did not vindicate Christiansen’s right to counsel. Accordingly, I would follow Karau and would reverse the conviction.