assume, without a scintilla of evidence, that Officer Grant informed Vetor, either from memory or by reading from his card, of the consequence of his refusal to submit to a breath test as required by Ind. Code 9-30-6-7(a). We find that Vetor met his burden of proof. In Zakhi, this court determined: To establish an adequate refusal under the implied consent statute, the arresting officer must convey the strong likelihood that suspension of driving privileges would follow the driver’s refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test. This is accomplished when the police officer informs the accused that refusal to take the test will result in the suspension of driving privileges. 560 N.E.2d at 686-87 (Citations omitted) (Emphasis added). See also Todd v. State, 566 N.E.2d 67, 70 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>). There is no evidence in the present case that
holding that probable cause existed to arrest for driving on a suspended license under state law holding insufficient officers advisement that defendants license may be suspended if he refused to submit to breath test when statute mandates that license will be suspended for refusal of chemical test holding that the admission of a certified document stating that defendants license was suspended was nontestimonial holding that denial of an independent chemical test after defendant refused to submit to a policeadministered test did not violate due process holding that a suspended lawyer remains subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court for acts committed while suspended