From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, Dept. of Highways v. Lee

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Feb 4, 1972
194 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 1972)

Opinion

No. 43012.

February 4, 1972.

Highway traffic regulation — license revocation — refusal to submit to chemical alcohol test — reasonableness.

Appeal by the Department of Highways from an order of the Washington County District Court, William T. Johnson, Judge, rescinding an order of the commissioner of highways revoking the driver's license of Louis Lee. Affirmed.

Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, James M. Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, and Thomas G. Lockhart, Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Roger R. Lenzmeier, for respondent.

Heard before Knutson, C. J., and Murphy, Kelly, and Hachey, JJ.


The state appeals from a district court order which held that Louis Lee had reasonable grounds to refuse to submit to a chemical alcohol test under the implied-consent statute. Minn. St. 1969, § 169.123. Mr. Lee's reason for his refusal is that he was confused when the arresting patrolman explained both the Miranda warnings and the rights and responsibilities of the implied-consent law. We affirm.

The facts and legal issue of this case are in all material respects identical with State, Department of Highways, v. Beckey, 291 Minn. 483, 192 N.W.2d 441 (1971). We find that the district court's order was not so clearly erroneous as to compel reversal.

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE TODD, not having been a member of this court at the time of the submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

State, Dept. of Highways v. Lee

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Feb 4, 1972
194 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 1972)
Case details for

State, Dept. of Highways v. Lee

Case Details

Full title:STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, v. LOUIS LEE

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Feb 4, 1972

Citations

194 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 1972)
194 N.W.2d 766

Citing Cases

State, Department of Public Safety, v. Stavaas

Defendant further raises the constitutional issue of equal protection because of alleged differential…