Id. We interpreted this provision of the implied consent statute in Olson v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 513 N.W.2d 491 (Minn.App. 1994), and Bortnem v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 610 N.W.2d 703 (Minn.App. 2000), review denied (Minn. July 25, 2000). In Olson, the driver's blood was drawn by a phlebotomist.

{16} Similarly, in People v. Reynolds, 193 Misc.2d 697, 749 N.Y.S.2d 687, 690–91, (2002) (non-precedential), since the EMT was not acting “under the supervision and at the direction of a physician” when he withdrew the defendant's blood in the emergency room, as required by the applicable statute, the results were held not admissible in the defendant's trial for driving while intoxicated, vehicular manslaughter, and other charges. {17} In Bortnem v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 610 N.W.2d 703, 704 (Minn.Ct.App.2000), a police officer who received several hundred hours of training, including 100–200 blood draws, to obtain his state certification as an “emergency medical technician paramedic,” withdrew the driver's blood at the police station following his arrest for DWI. Like our statute, the Minnesota statute states that “only” certain individuals may withdraw blood to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs, including a “physician's trained mobile intensive care paramedic.”

The commissioner has the burden "to establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability." Bortnem v. Comm'r of Pub.Safety, 610 N.W.2d 703, 705 (Minn. App. 2000) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 25, 2000). Appellant claims that because the sample was not tested for the presence of glucose, which can ferment and affect alcohol levels in urine, the test was not reliable and should not have been admitted.

A line of cases exists supporting the importance of the person who withdraws blood for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol or controlled substances being qualified under the predecessor to Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 7(a). See State v. Pearson, 633 N.W.2d 81, 84 (Minn.App. 2001) (affirming district court finding that a medical laboratory assistant is authorized to withdraw blood); Bortnem v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 610 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Minn.App. 2000) (concluding that police officer, who was also a paramedic, not authorized to withdraw blood), review denied (Minn. July 25, 2000); Olson v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 513 N.W.2d 491, 493-94 (Minn.App. 1994) (concluding that a liberal construction of the statute does not exclude a phlebotomist whose only duty was to draw blood). The person who withdraws blood is an important part of the creation and preservation of evidence in a proceeding such as this, and the medical-personnel certificate is a critical aspect of evidence.

This court recognizes "`Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and our power to declare a statute unconstitutional should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.'" Bortnem v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 610 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Minn.App. 2000) (quoting In re Haggerty, 448 N.W.2d 363, 364 (Minn. 1989)), review denied (Minn.