Officer referring to “required tests” did not substantially change implied-consent notice

In affirming DDS’s suspension of a driver’s license, the Court rejected the driver’s argument that the arresting officer had improperly read the implied-consent notice to the point of being misleading.  The officer had reverted to an older version of the implied-consent notice, which referred to the driver submitting to “required” chemical tests, as opposed to “requested” tests.  The Court concluded the substitution of “required” for “requested” did not change the substance of the mandatory statutory notice.