This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Carol Ann Altrichter,
Commissioner of Public Safety,
Filed May 9, 2000
Crow Wing County District Court
File No. C9-99-1189
William C. Kueffner, 1140 Interchange Tower, 600 South Highway 169, St. Louis Park, MN 55426 (for appellant)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Darren Dejong, Assistant Attorney General, 525 Park St., Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
This appeal is from an order sustaining the revocation of appellant Carol Ann Altrichter’s driving privileges under Minn. Stat. § 169.123 (1998), following her DWI arrest on May 22, 1999. Appellant claims that the district court erred in concluding that she waived her right to counsel where her testimony was merely that she did not know her attorney’s telephone number. Because the district court found the arresting officer’s contrary testimony credible and because we must defer to that credibility determination, we affirm.
The district court found that appellant waived her right to counsel, relying on the testimony of the arresting officer, Michael Lambert, who stated that appellant did not request to consult with an attorney. See Friedman v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828, 835 (Minn. 1991) (driver afforded constitutional right to consult with attorney before determining whether to submit to chemical test during DWI arrest). Appellant testified that when she was asked whether she wished to consult with an attorney she replied, “I don’t know his telephone number,” to which Lambert replied, “[t]hen it’s a no.” She then allegedly responded, “No, I don’t have his number,” to which he again replied, “[t]hen it’s a no.”
Lambert’s testimony contradicted appellant’s. He testified that it is his standard practice to offer a DWI arrestee access to a telephone and phone books if the arrestee does not know an attorney’s telephone number. He further testified that he would not consider an arrestee to have refused testing if she did not know an attorney’s telephone number. Lambert admitted, however, that he could not remember details of appellant’s arrest, other than those included in his arrest report and in the standard implied consent advisory form that he filled out during appellant’s post-arrest processing.
The district court specifically found Lambert’s testimony more credible than appellant’s. As this court must defer to the credibility determinations made by the district court, we affirm. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01; Linde v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 586 N.W.2d 807, 810 (Minn. App. 1998) (affirming revocation where court relied on officer’s notations on advisory form and police report, which contradicted arrestee’s testimony), review denied (Minn. Feb. 18, 1999); Wolle v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 413 N.W.2d 258, 260 (Minn. App. 1987) (affirming district court’s finding that driver unable to provide breath sample where finding depended on officer’s testimony, which contradicted arrestee’s testimony).