Forrest v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2014, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bryce Edward Ramthun v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
- Schulz v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
- Meyers v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION
Appellant Thomas Edward Forrest appeals from an order sustaining the revocation of his driver's license. We affirm.
FACTS
Police officer Jerome Zervas arrested appellant for driving while intoxicated in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.121 (1984). Officer Zervas read the implied consent advisory to appellant and asked him to take a breath test. Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2(c) (1984). Appellant refused to take the breath test and requested a blood test. Officer Zervas explained that he was only offering him a breath test. Appellant again refused to take it. Officer Zervas again read the implied consent advisory, allowed appellant to read it himself, and told appellant that the breath test was his only option. Appellant said he would only take a blood test. Officer Zervas then took appellant to Anoka County Jail.
ISSUE
Does a driver have a right to refuse a breath test under the implied consent law and instead insist on a blood test?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the language of Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2 (1984), is ambiguous because it is not clear that refusal of a test offered by a police officer constitutes a refusal of all tests. This issue was directly addressed in Carlson v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 357 N.W.2d 391 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). The court held “appellant’s refusal to take a breath test offered under the implied consent law and insistence instead on a blood test was not a reasonable refusal.” Id. at 392.
DECISION
We affirm the trial court’s revocation of appellant’s driver’s license.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.