Hallock v. Commissioner of Public Safety
| Decision Date | 06 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CX-84-2248,CX-84-2248 |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Brian Ames HALLOCK, Petitioner, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The trial court did not err in sustaining the revocation of Hallock's driver's license, because he had no right to confer with counsel prior to deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.
2. The trial court did not err in sustaining revocation of Hallock's license since the advisory read to Hallock was sufficient.
Leon R. Bissonette, Wayzata, for appellant.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Mary B. Magnuson, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard, considered and decided by LESLIE, P.J., and FOLEY and HUSPENI, JJ.,
Brian A. Hallock appeals the order of the trial court sustaining the revocation of his driving privileges. We affirm.
On September 28, 1984, at approximately 11:23 p.m., appellant Brian Hallock was arrested by a Richfield police officer for driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.121 (1984).
The police officer took appellant to the Richfield Public Safety Department and read him their Implied Consent Advisory which included the following statement:
After submitting to testing or deciding not to submit to testing you have the right to consult with an attorney and to have additional tests made by a person of your own choosing. Your decision whether or not to submit to testing is final and may not be changed following any conversation with your attorney. (Emphasis added.)
The officer asked appellant to submit to a breath test. Appellant decided not to do so, admitting he understood the information on the advisory form. Appellant contends he was never offered an opportunity to consult with an attorney prior to the decision on testing. After his refusal to submit to testing, Hallock's driver's license was revoked for one year.
Did the trial court err by sustaining the revocation of Hallock's license?
1. Appellant contends his license revocation should be rescinded since he was not given the opportunity to speak with his attorney before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.
In Nyflot v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 369 N.W.2d 512 (Minn.1985), the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the implied consent advisory established by the legislature in Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123, subd. 2 (1984) effectively abolished the limited right to counsel previously recognized in Prideaux v. State, Department of Public Safety, 310 Minn. 405, 247 N.W.2d 385 (1976).
Nyflot is controlling here, so the trial court properly refused to rescind the revocation of Hallock's license.
2. Appellant also argues that the Richfield police added language to the statutory implied consent advisory which was confusing and discouraged him from seeking advice of counsel. Hallock was advised:
After submitting to testing or deciding not to submit to testing you have the right to consult with an attorney and to have additional tests made by a person of your own choosing. Your decision whether or not to submit to testing is final and may not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety
...has recommended that officers read the exact words of the statute to avoid confusion or improper deviation. Hallock v. Comm'r of Public Safety, 372 N.W.2d 82, 83 (Minn.App.1985). The drivers here do not contend that the officers incorrectly read the advisory or conducted themselves in any w......
-
Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety
...relevant law. Police officers have been cautioned by this court not to deviate from the statutory advisory. Hallock v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 372 N.W.2d 82, 83 (Minn.App.1985). Accordingly, the officers in these cases did not inform the drivers about the right to an additional test wh......
-
McCormick v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, A19-1466
...from the language of the implied-consent statute so long as the information the officer provides is not misleading or confusing. In Hallock v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety , the officer added to the advisory, "Your decision whether or not to submit to testing is final and may not be changed follow......
-
Torland v. Commissioner of Public Safety
...the test. See also Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 379 N.W.2d 678, 681 (Minn.Ct.App.1986); Hallock v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 372 N.W.2d 82, 83 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). In light of the supreme court's clear language in Nyflot, that a driver is bound by an initial decision to re......