60-6,204.
Driving under influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs; test without preliminary breath test; when; qualified personnel.
Any person arrested for any offense involving the operation or actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs shall be required to submit to a chemical test or tests of his or her blood, breath, or urine as provided in section 60-6,197 without the preliminary breath test if the arresting peace officer does not have available the necessary equipment for administering a breath test or if the person is unconscious or is otherwise in a condition rendering him or her incapable of testing by a preliminary breath test. Only a physician, registered nurse, or other trained person employed by a licensed health care facility or health care service defined in the Health Care Facility Licensure Act or a clinical laboratory certified pursuant to the federal Clinical Laboratories Improvement Act of 1967, as amended, or Title XVIII or XIX of the federal Social Security Act to withdraw human blood for scientific or medical purposes, acting at the request of a peace officer, may withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the concentration of alcohol or the presence of drugs, but this limitation shall not apply to the taking of a urine or breath specimen.
Source:Laws 1971, LB 948, § 7; Laws 1972, LB 1095, § 4; R.S.Supp.,1972, § 39-727.15; Laws 1974, LB 679, § 2; Laws 1990, LB 799, § 5; Laws 1992, LB 291, § 8; R.S.Supp.,1992, § 39-669.14; Laws 1993, LB 370, § 299; Laws 2000, LB 819, § 78; Laws 2000, LB 1115, § 9.
Cross References
Health Care Facility Licensure Act, see section 71-401.
Annotations
While there is no conditional or qualified refusal, if a refusal was reasonable under the circumstances, such refusal cannot be the basis of a revocation of driving privileges. Fear of needles or AIDS does not in and of itself provide a justifiable basis for refusal. If a licensee questions the qualifications of a technician who is to draw blood, the licensee shall be orally or otherwise informed of the technician's training and experience. A licensee's refusal to allow a blood draw is justified and reasonable in the absence of oral or other information about the technician's training and experience after such qualifications have been questioned. Ruch v. Conrad, 247 Neb. 318, 526 N.W.2d 653 (1995).
Certified medical technologist was qualified technician to withdraw blood for purpose of determining alcoholic or drug content therein. State v. Stein, 241 Neb. 225, 486 N.W.2d 921 (1992).
This section is pari materia with section 39-727.03 (transferred to section 60-6,197), and other sections mentioned in opinion. Stevenson v. Sullivan, 190 Neb. 295, 207 N.W.2d 680 (1973).
Implied Consent Law as amended in 1971 does not involve compulsion within Fifth Amendment; is constitutional; and penalties are as provided in section 39-727 (transferred to section 60-6,196). State v. Manley, 189 Neb. 415, 202 N.W.2d 831 (1972).