police conduct shocked the conscience when officials entered a defendant’s home unlawfully, used physical force against the defendant to pry pills from his mouth and, when unsuccessful, had the defendant’s stomach pumped). In this case, Netland contends, in essence, that the officer’s decision not to offer an alternative test when she requested to take one shocks the conscience. We cannot agree that such behavior rises to the level of a constitutional violation. The officer did not use force or injure Netland when he did not administer another test. The implied-consent statute, moreover, allows an officer to choose which test to administer and does not require an alternative test when a breath test is refused. Minn.Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 3 (2008); see also Larivee, 656 N.W.2d at 232 (<HOLDING>). Finally, after the officer refused to
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 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 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 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