Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ekong v. Commissioner of Public Safety

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 6, 1993No. C3-92-1889Published

1DissentRandall, Judge

I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court. Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2 (1992) indicates the implied consent test shall be administered at the direction of a peace officer. I agree with the majority that an initial refusal by a driver may not be cured by the driver’s subsequent agreement to be tested. See Parsons v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 488 N.W.2d 500, 502-03 (Minn.1992). I also agree that a police officer is not required to offer a driver a second opportunity to be tested. Palbicki v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 347 N.W.2d 512, 515 (Minn.App.1984). However, Minnesota…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Palbicki v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  2. Parsons v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
  3. Smith v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
  4. Anderson v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API