Legal Opinion
Lynch v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 23, 1993No. C8-92-1631PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HARTEN, Judge.
Appellant Richard Paul Lynch argues that his refusal of a blood test because of his objection to a routine hospital consent form, followed by his rejection of an alternative urine test, does not constitute refusal to submit to testing for implied consent purposes. We affirm.
FACTS
On January 26,1992, Lynch was arrested for driving while under the influence. The arresting law enforcement officer transported Lynch to Riverside Medical Center for alcohol testing. The officer read Lynch the implied consent advisory and asked if he wished to speak with an attorney. Lynch…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State, Department of Highways v. BeckeySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
- Maffei v. Commonwealth, Department of TransportationCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- State v. MooreHawaii Supreme Court · 1980
- Conrad v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Gunderson v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- Busch v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- State v. HagenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- State v. SpringCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1996
- Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014