we note that the admission of the PBT result in this case was in accord with RSA 265:92-a (Supp. 2003) (amended 2003), which provided, in relevant part, that: “The results of [a PBT] may be admissible in evidence for the sole purpose of determining whether the officer had probable cause to arrest____” Here, because the plaintiff was neither placed at a disadvantage nor unfairly prejudiced by Officer Stahl’s comments or the admission of the PBT result at the ALS hearing, we hold that the plaintiffs right to due process under the State Constitution was not violated. Because the Federal Constitution affords the plaintiff no greater protection in this context, we reach the same conclusion under the Federal Constitution as we do under the State Constitution. See Roberts, 48 F.3d at 1291-96 (<HOLDING>). Even if the admission of the PBT result was
holding that the defendants due process rights were violated by refusal to allow him to contact counsel after he was given misleading information on consequences of refusal to take bloodalcohol test holding refusal to sign hospital waiver of liability form is not a refusal under section 1547 holding that a refusal to allow a question is an implicit ruling on a request to ask that question holding that a refusal to sign an implied consent form is not a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for purposes of section 1547 holding that a qualified or conditional consent is tantamount to a refusal except where a driver qualifies a refusal on his having an opportunity to contact an attorney