State v. Fortman

OPINION

KALITOWSKI, Judge.

Appellant Karl Robert Fortman challenges his conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol on the grounds that his constitutional right to counsel was violated when the Intoxilyzer malfunctioned and the entire implied consent advisory was not reread to him prior to obtaining an alternate sample.

FACTS

In July 1991, a New Ulm police officer stopped appellant’s vehicle for speeding. Based upon the officer’s observations and results of a preliminary breath test, appellant was properly arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol and transported…