In other words, by the nature of the proceedings, the individual does not have the liberty of arranging for the test himself, so the statute makes at least one provision for police assistance, which is police transportation to the independent testing facility. However, that the statute does not provide for a phone call to obtain the necessary funds should not foreclose that individual’s right. Indeed, to hold as such would render meaningless the requirement of the statute that the individual be given the opportunity to obtain an independent chemical analysis of his blood, and would further sanction police misconduct in misinforming an indmdual about the test and preventing an individual from obtaining such a test. See State v. Weaver, 86 Ohio App.3d 427, 621 N.E.2d 526, 529 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Other jurisdictions having similar statutory
holding the limit of two tests in section 5770202 applies to the types of chemical test performed and not the number of times the same chemical test is performed holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation holding that an arrest occurred despite an officers testimony that the accused was only detained prior to a breath test holding that denial of an independent chemical test after defendant refused to submit to a policeadministered test did not violate due process holding that suppression of stateadministered breath test is necessary where the accused is denied access to a telephone despite his requests to arrange an independent chemical test