test. Onee the driver has elected either a blood or a breath test, the officer has a corresponding duty to comply with the driver's request. See § 42-4-1801(T)(a@)(II)(A). The issue before us today requires us to apply the language of the statute in light of our own precedent in Gillett. Of course, our primary task in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the general assembly. People v. Dist. Court, 718 P.2d 918, 921 (Colo.1986). We first look to the language of the statute itself. Words are given their. plain and ordinary meaning unless they have acquired a technical or particular meaning. § 2-4-101, C.R.S. (2004). If the clear intent of the legislature appears with reasonable certainty, we need not resort to other rules of statutory constru pp.1994) (<HOLDING>). There is no language on the face of the
holding that detention ended when police officer returned drivers license and registration and driver voluntarily consented to additional questioning holding that arresting officer has duty to implement drivers election without allowing driver to change such election recognizing that general assembly has a duty to implement section 27 and devise environmental remediation standards holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child holding that a police officer may stop a driver where the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion regarding the commission of a civil traffic violation