individual requesting test in New Mexico

1993The test generally adopted in these jurisdictions is the one first set forth in Lund v. Hjelle, 224 N.W.2d at 557 : [T]he subsequent consent to take the test cures the prior first refusal when the request to take the test is made within a reasonable time after the prior first refusal; when such a test administered upon the subsequent consent would still be accurate; when testing equipment or facilities are still readily available; when honoring a request for a test, following a prior first refusal, will result in no substantial inconvenience or expense to the police; and when the individual re

1993The test generally adopted in these jurisdictions is the one first set forth in Lund v. Hjelle, 224 N.W.2d at 557 : [T]he subsequent consent to take the test cures the prior first refusal when the request to take the test is made within a reasonable time after the prior first refusal; when such a test administered upon the subsequent consent would still be accurate; when testing equipment or facilities are still readily available; when honoring a request for a test, following a prior first refusal, will result in no substantial inconvenience or expense to the police; and when the individual re

1993Some jurisdictions have added glosses to this test, such as requiring that the cure be within "a very short and reasonable time," Standish, 683 P.2d at 1280 (emphasis added), or that the delay not "materially affect the test results," Moore, 614 P.2d at 935 ; accord Zahtila; In re Smith.

1993Some jurisdictions have added glosses to this test, such as requiring that the cure be within “a very short and reasonable time,” Standish, 683 P.2d at 1280 (emphasis added), or that the delay not “materially affect the test results,” Moore, 614 P.2d at 935 ; accord Zahtila; In re Smith.

2012The first prong serves the purpose of 11 “offering the flustered motorist a fair chance to understand his or her rights.” Id. 12 In the case before us, Driver’s recantation came eighty minutes after the initial 13 refusal, well beyond the “reasonable length of time” defined in Suazo as “never more 14 than a matter of minutes.” And no matter how promptly Driver offered to take a blood 15 test as an alternative, such an action does not cure his refusal to submit to the breath 16 test.

2012The New 16 Mexico Supreme Court established a five-factor test to determine whether a driver 17 cured an initial refusal: 18 A motorist will be permitted to rescind his initial refusal 19 (1) when he does so before the elapse of the reasonable 20 length of time it would take to understand the consequences 21 of his refusal; 15 1 (2) when such a test would still be accurate; 2 (3) when testing equipment or facilities are still readily 3 available; 4 (4) when honoring a request for a test, following a prior 5 first refusal, will result in no substantial inconvenience or 6 expense to the police;

2012The New 16 Mexico Supreme Court established a five-factor test to determine whether a driver 17 cured an initial refusal: 18 A motorist will be permitted to rescind his initial refusal 19 (1) when he does so before the elapse of the reasonable 20 length of time it would take to understand the consequences 21 of his refusal; 15 1 (2) when such a test would still be accurate; 2 (3) when testing equipment or facilities are still readily 3 available; 4 (4) when honoring a request for a test, following a prior 5 first refusal, will result in no substantial inconvenience or 6 expense to the police;