“[W]e agree with the defendant and do not read the statute to apply only where both a blood draw and subsequent chemical test or analysis is done by or at the direction of police. First, such an interpretation would contradict the plain language of the statute, rendering the consent provision of §24(1)(e) inoperative in certain situations where, according to the plain language of the statute, the consent provision applies,” Justice Elspeth B. Cypher wrote on behalf of the state high court.

       

Click Here To Read The Full Article