Schulz v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Minn.Ct.App., 2/10/2009. An officer stopped Mr. Schulz, then arrested him for impaired driving. At the station, the officer offered Mr. Schulz a urine test; Mr. Schulz wanted a blood test, instead. Mr. Schulz urinated for the officer, but did not renew his request for a blood test.
The Commissioner subsequently revoked Mr. Schulz's license. At the Implied Consent hearing, Mr. Schulz argued that his right to an independent test had been violated in two ways: the officer didn't advise Mr. Schulz of his right to an additional test, and the officer didn't provide a phone by which Mr. Schulz could arrange that test. The trial court disagreed, and the Court of Appeals affirms.
Here's what the statute says about testing:
The person tested has the right to have someone of the person’s own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a peace officer; provided, that the additional test sample on behalf of the person is obtained at the place where the person is in custody, after the test administered at the direction of a peace officer, and at no expense to the state. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test or tests by a person does not preclude the admission in evidence of the test taken at the direction of a peace officer unless the additional test was prevented or denied by the peace officer.
[Emphasis in the original.] Mr. Schulz made his desire for a blood test known, but that was before the urine test. He needed to renew his desire (request) after submitting to what the officer wanted; otherwise it doesn't count. Further, the office has no obligation to assist in any way the procurement of an alternative test, even when the requester has said all the magic words (and said them at the right time).
No comments:
Post a Comment