stating that the focus is “both on the police officer’s duties in vindicating the right to counsel and the defendant’s diligent exercise of the right”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the focus is “both on the police officer’s duties in vindicating the right to counsel and the defendant’s diligent exercise of the right”
- stating that the right to counsel is vindicated 11 even when the driver cannot locate his attorney and does not wish to call another attorney
- “[R]efusing to try to contact more than one attorney or giving up trying to contact an attorney is fundamentally different than making a continued good-faith effort to reach an attorney.”
- finding 24 minutes insufficient time to contact an attorney before being required to submit to a test
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KALITOWSKI, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I agree we cannot say as a matter of law that 24 minutes is always a reasonable amount of time for a driver to consult with counsel. However, under the facts of this case there is no evidence to support a legal conclusion that the St. Louis Park Police did not give respondent a sufficient amount of time to vindicate his right to counsel under the Minnesota Constitution.
The police went beyond the minimum requirements for assisting in the vindication of the right to counsel by providing respondent with both a telephone and a yellow pages telephone directory. See *843 Friedman v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828, 835 (Minn.1991). The record contains no evidence as to why respondent was unable to contact an attorney or as to when, if ever, he would consult with counsel. Absent such evidence, it was not unreasonable for the police, after 24 minutes, to require respondent to make a decision regarding testing without consulting counsel.