Elliott v. the State. — Boggs, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice Boggs joins the Court’s opinion and uses the concurrence to clarify that the Court’s recent decisions, including the present case and Olevik, are limited to breath‑test chemical analyses and do not affect blood‑test requirements, the administrative license‑suspension scheme, or the use of a refusal in administrative proceedings. He notes that the language of the implied‑consent notices may cause future litigation and suggests legislative amendment, and he cautions about any constitutional amendment to Paragraph XVI.