Opinion
Feb. 20, 1974
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Charles D. Burg, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., James K. Tarpey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants-appellees.
RULAND, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the district court which affirmed the Department of Revenue's order suspending plaintiff's license to operate a motor vehicle. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
Plaintiff was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Following the arrest, plaintiff was taken to a police station and asked to submit to a chemical test pursuant to the implied consent law, 1971 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 13--5--30. He was then advised of the effect of a refusal to submit to the test as required by section 13--5--30(3)(b). Paragraph 5 of the advisement form given him states:
'You are advised that, if you choose to refuse to submit to a chemical test as requested by the arresting officer the test will not be given; provided further, that the Department of Revenue, upon receipt of a written report from the arresting officer stating your refusal, shall serve notice upon you to appear before the Department of Revenue and show cause why your license to operate a motor vehicle or your privilege to operate a motor vehicle within this state should not be revoked for a period of six months.'
Plaintiff then refused to submit to any chemical tests because the arrest was made by a Denver police officer, and plaintiff felt that the offense, if any, might have taken place in Jefferson County.
A report of plaintiff's refusal to submit to any chemical tests was forwarded to the Department of Revenue which thereafter held a hearing and suspended plaintiff's license for a period of six months.
Plaintiff argues that the advisement form was misleading and therefore legally insufficient because it did not specify the statutory grounds upon which an individual may refuse to submit to the test. Hence, plaintiff contends that the order of suspension should be set aside.
The decision in Vigil v. Motor Vehicle Division of the Department of Revenue, Colo., 519 P.2d 332 (announced February 11, 1974), disposes of plaintiff's contention adversely to him. There the Court held that an advisement form, which was essentially the same as the one at issue here, fully complied with the notice requirements of the implied consent law, and further held that it is unnecessary in the advisement form to enumerate specifically the statutory grounds that permit one to refuse to submit to a chemical test. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and COYTE, J., concur.