very upset, and the passenger. The officer explained at the hearing that he did not believe that he could effectively deliver Naik’s implied consent rights until the passenger was attended to, possession of the vehicle was transferred, and the scene was controlled: [Naik’s] asking me questions. I’ve got the passenger asking me questions. [Naik’s] crying____A lot of things are going on at the moment. ... I had paperwork. I had to fill out the impound. I had to situate the belongings. I had to constantly talk to the passenger and the driver. I didn’t have any time . . . to . . . read Implied Consent until everything was situated and I felt it was quiet enough to talk to [Naik] so she could understand____She was very emotional. I was going to wait until a time when she SE2d 706) (1985) (<HOLDING>). The cases relied upon by appellant are
holding that a 20 to 30 minute delay was warranted when the arresting officer was investigating the accident scene and dealing with the hazard created by the wrecked vehicle holding that the defendant was guilty of leaving the scene because the injured party and a police officer were present at the scene within a reasonable time after the accident holding that the 16minute delay between the defendants arrest and the reading of the implied consent notice did not require suppression of the chemical test results when the arresting officer was dealing with a second intoxicated driver and investigating the accident scene holding that exigency exists when time has elapsed while the driver is transported to the hospital and the investigating officer is detained at the accident scene holding scene of accident was suspicious place