02-0770 State v. Baratka

Listen to this article

“While the officer was mistaken regarding the right to require Baratka to perform field tests, there was no misinformation regarding the request for chemical testing. The officer’s right to request the test was properly stated when the officer read the Informing the Accused form. In fact, Baratka does not identify how any misinformation about the field tests affected his understanding of the chemical testing.

“Additionally, Baratka argues that he never verbally or physically refused testing. However, when asked to submit to a test, rather than respond he twice requested to speak to an attorney. Repeated requests for an attorney can amount to a refusal as long as the officer informs the driver that there is no right to an attorney at that point.[citation]. The officer did so inform Baratka. We therefore conclude that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Baratka refused chemical testing, and its order revoking Baratka’s operating privileges.”

Order affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Price County, Carlson, J.; Peterson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Michael C. Witt, Jefferson

For Respondent: Patrick G. Schilling, Phillips