Court Opinion

ID: 9756892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:06:27.566619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:32.623253
License: Public Domain

McGINLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority. Webb, Shine, and Uebelacker all deal with situations where the arresting officer’s actions or statements at the time of the request to submit to chemical testing would cause a reasonable person to believe that he was in custody. Here, the trial court concluded that such circumstances were absent.
Although Officer Laut testified that he originally told McGlynn that he had reason to believe McGlynn was under the influence of alcohol, and it is possible McGlynn could have inferred a pending arrest from this statement, Officer Laut also testified that McGlynn did not appear to understand him at first. While Officer Laut testified he repeated his request to submit to the test until McGlynn understood, he did not repeat his statement concerning his belief that *463McGlynn had violated the law. McGlynn testified that he did not see Officer Laut at the scene of the accident and that he first became aware of him at the hospital, where he heard Officer Laut ask him once to submit to blood alcohol testing.
I would hold that the trial court’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.