State v. Velez

Amestoy, C J.,

¶ 15. dissenting. The majority finds “no practical difference” between its analysis in this case and its rationale in State v. Gilman, 173 Vt. 110, 787 A.2d 1238 (2001). I agree, and therefore again respectfully dissent.

¶ 16. According to 23 V.S.A. § 1202, every person who operates a vehicle on a Vermont highway has impliedly consented to an evidentiary breath test for the purposes of determming the concentration of alcohol or another drug in the blood. Id. § 1202(a)(1). An individual may refuse the test, but not without consequence. See id. § 1202(b) (“refusal may be introduced…