This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C5-97-1458

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Thomas Lee Zanotti,

Appellant.

Filed December 23, 1997

Affirmed

Short, Judge

Anoka County District Court

File No. K396573600

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, and

Douglas L. Johnson, Assistant Coon Rapids Attorney, 11155 Robinson Drive, Coon Rapids, MN 55433 (for respondent)

Richard L. Swanson, 1059 Stoughton Avenue, P.O. Box 85, Chaska, MN 55318 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Peterson, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

SHORT, Judge

Thomas Lee Zanotti was charged with a gross misdemeanor DWI in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.121, subds. 1(d), 3(c)(1) (1996). After the trial court denied Zanotti's motion to suppress the results of the Intoxilyzer test, Zanotti and the state stipulated to the facts and submitted the case under State v. Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d 854, 856 (Minn. 1980). The trial court convicted Zanotti, and he appeals from that judgment. We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

Where the facts are not in dispute, we independently determine whether the evidence requires suppression as a matter of law. State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 221 (Minn.1992).

Zanotti argues the results of the Intoxilyzer test should be suppressed because the arresting officer did not offer Zanotti the use of a telephone so he could make arrangements for an additional test. See, e.g., State v. Galarneault, 354 N.W.2d 597, 598-600 (Minn. App. 1984) (holding police did not impede defendant's attempt to obtain an additional test where defendant used phone to arrange test, but police refused to provide transportation to test site). The record demonstrates: (1) Zanotti requested an additional test; and (2) upon completion of the state-administered Intoxilyzer test, the officer provided Zanotti with a urine kit. There is no evidence Zanotti requested the use of a telephone to facilitate an additional test or the officer prevented Zanotti from obtaining an additional test. See Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 3(b) (1996) (finding failure or inability to obtain additional test does not preclude admission unless test prevented or denied by police officer); Haveri v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 552 N.W.2d 762, 765 (Minn. App. 1996) (noting a distinction between an officer failing to assist and an officer hampering attempt to obtain additional test), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1996); Hager v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 382 N.W.2d 907, 911-12 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding officer under no affirmative duty to inquire if motorist requires use of phone to arrange additional test). Under these circumstances, the trial court properly admitted evidence of the Intoxilyzer test.

Affirmed.