be made "by a law enforcement officer having probable cause to believe that the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of the prohibitions against DUI" and related offenses. Section 42-4-1801.1(2)(a)(). It further provides that the tests "shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having probable ecause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of section 42-4-1801." Section 42-4-1301.1(5), C.R.8.2006. Taken together, these provisions evidence a legislative intent that decisions regarding blood or breath testing be committed to the arresting officer or, at a minimum, to another law enforcement officer who possesses the statutorily required probable cause. See Lahey v. Department of Revenue, 881 P.2d 458 (Colo.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). Allowing a retraction to be communicated to a
holding that consent or assent to a continuance of a hearing does not satisfy the requirement that the record show the parties express consent to an extension of the 90day period holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion holding that officers not required to give implied consent warnings where statute did not apply recognizing duty imposed on arresting officers under express consent statute holding that defendants consent was involuntary where defendant consented to search following a warrantless entry and officers explained that absent consent the officers would obtain a warrant