Mar. 16, 2004). Citing Burke v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 381 N.W.2d 903 (Minn. App. 1986), appellant argues that he provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he reasonably refused a breath test because he had a mouth injury that prevented him from adequately performing the test. In Burke, this court affirmed a district court decision to rescind a license revocation under the implied-consent law, based on a factual finding that a driver's failure to provide a sufficient breath sample was due to the driver's heart condition.

Whether a person is physically unable to provide a breath sample is a question of fact that will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Burke v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 381 N.W.2d 903, 904 (Minn. App. 1986). Due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of witnesses.

The issue of physical inability is a question of fact, and the trial court's findings will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Burke v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 381 N.W.2d 903, 904 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). Due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.

Whether a person is physically unable to provide a breath sample is a question of fact for the district court that we review for clear error. Burke v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 381 N.W.2d 903, 904 (Minn.App. 1986). Jackson contends that he satisfied his burden of proof by presenting sufficient evidence of his physical inability to test.

Underlying findings of fact will not be reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. Burke v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 381 N.W.2d 903, 904 (Minn.App. 1986). Under New York law, a motorist does not have a constitutional right to consult with an attorney before submitting to a chemical test for alcohol.

This court will not reverse the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Burke v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 381 N.W.2d 903, 904 (Minn. App. 1986). Questions of law are subject to de novo review.

And physical inability to produce a blood sample does not constitute a refusal. See Burke v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 381 N.W.2d 903, 904 (Minn.App. 1986) (providing that a driver's failure to provide two separate breath samples constitutes a refusal "unless the failure is due to physical inability" (citation omitted)). In the situation she confronted, Trooper Dingman was not required to offer appellant a urine test before any action could be taken against him.

Considering Leurer's testimony that he drank only two non-alcoholic beers, the district court's credibility determination was not clearly erroneous. See Burke v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 381 N.W.2d 903, 904 (Minn.App. 1986) (district court's factual findings in implied consent cases not disturbed unless clearly erroneous). Affirmed.

The issue of physical inability is a question of fact, and the trial court's findings will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Burke v. Commissioner of Pub.Safety, 381 N.W.2d 903, 904 (Minn.App. 1986). The trial court determined that Grossoehme's failure to give two adequate breath samples was not the result of a physical inability.

The issue of physical inability is a question of fact, and the trial court's findings will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Burke v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 381 N.W.2d 903, 904 (Minn.App. 1986). Deleon argues that the trial court imposed an unreasonable standard when it required him to prove that he was physically unable to blow into the Intoxilyzer and contends that his subjective report of pain should be considered.