Later, in South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983), the Court also held that the evidentiary use of an arrestee's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test does not compromise the accused's constitutional right against self-incrimination when state law permits the accused to refuse, but discourages that choice by allowing the refusal to be used against the accused at trial. In State v. Hansen, 444 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 1989), we explained this background for our implied-consent statutes that allow a driver to refuse to submit to a chemical test. NDCC 39-20-04.

We conclude, however, that each of the cases that Widenhofer presents is distinguishable. See Seith v. State (Ga.App. 1997), 484 S.E.2d 690 (concluding that defendant was not under arrest prior to blood testing but that testing was done because defendant was involved in a serious accident therefore authorizing statute did not require that defendant be under arrest at time of testing); State v.Hansen (N.D. 1989), 444 N.W.2d 330 (officer does not contend that defendant was under arrest at time of blood sampling and defendant did not consent to blood test); State v. Waicelunas (Ariz.Ct.App. 1983), 672 P.2d 968 (officer testified that he did not place defendant under arrest and extracted blood sample despite defendant's refusal); State v. Williams (Kan.Ct.App. 1980), 610 P.2d 111 (officer admitted that he did not verbally arrest defendant and court found that defendant did not voluntarily consent to blood testing); State v. Baker (Neb. 1969), 171 N.W.2d 798 (dispute existed whether defendant consented to blood testing, no dispute that defendant was not arrested until two days after blood was withdrawn); State v. Gorey (Ohio Mun. 1994), 646 N.E.2d 1208 (statute specifically requires that defendant be "actually seized;" Ohio does not recognize "constructive seizure" of the defendant). Widenhofer further asserts that "it is clear that a reasonable person in Widenhofer's situation would have felt free to walk awa

Given the detailed directions in Form 104 (6-92), it is difficult to imagine a case when certified compliance with them will not also furnish facial evidence that the sample was properly obtained and the test fairly administered, if the test was the result of a valid arrest or other precondition for its administration. See Wilhelmi v. Director of Dep't of Transp., 498 N.W.2d 150 (N.D. 1993); State v. Hansen, 444 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 1989). Testimony about compliance with Form 104 is only necessary for the prosecution's casein-chief if the documentary evidence does not satisfy all four elements. Although the prosecution did not offer complete documentation here, as it easily could have, the evidence as a whole shows compliance with the directions of Form 104, and the blood-alcohol test was properly admitted.

See 1931 N.D.Sess. Laws, ch. 309, § 11. If the Legislature had intended to continue such a limitation on investment income, it easily could have included a specific provision to that effect. See State v. Hansen, 444 N.W.2d 330, 333 (N.D. 1989). The Bank also charges a percentage fee on the corpus of the estate.