B0ycey wrote:Right, I have read the article and looked up the 'implied consent law'. The officer would be wrong to use this law in this case whether the person was guilty or not (unless he was a suspect in a drink driving offence to be used for that very purpose). Now you know this, do you accept the officer has no credible defence here?
He was in an accident. This is all that would be needed to enact 'implied consent' normally.
The only reason he was wrong was because he said he did not think the guy was guilty of anything.
The nurse picked up on this. He was wrong and she was right but it was a 'nuanced misunderstanding'. There was no intent to violate the law.
I have now repeated this several times. That is enough.