statutes provide no remedy for violation of the statutory right to counsel. 2012 WL 4679128, at *5 (Atcheson, J., concurring). Dumler timely petitioned this court for review. Statutory Right to Counsel Under Kansas’ Implied Consent Law, “[a]ny person who operates ... a vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of this act, to submit to one or more tests of the person’s blood, breath, urine or other bodily substance to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs.” K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 8-1001(a). But the statute provides that a “person shall be given” certain mandatory notices before a law enforcement officer administers such a test. See K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 8-1001(k); Barnhart v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 243 Kan. 209, 212-13, 755 P.2d 1337 (1988) (<HOLDING>). The notices advise, inter alia, that “there
holding notices required before dui arrestee must submit to a breath test are mandatoiy holding that there was sufficient probable cause for the defendants dui arrest when the evidence showed that the officer smelled the odor of alcohol on the defendants breath the defendants eyes were bloodshot and watery and his breath test was positive for alcohol holding that a person arrested for dui has the right to consult an attorney before taking a breath test when such consultation would not delay or interfere with the investigation or test taking holding that the odor of alcohol on the defendants breath her admission that she had a few drinks earlier in the evening and a positive result on a breath test do not provide probable cause to arrest her for dui holding that dui is not such an offense