Driver challenged improperly read IMPLIED CONSENT WARNING asserting the officer's time of arrest and the reading of implied consent were wrong. The appeals court found that despite the discrepancies in documents regarding the times of arrest and of reading of the implied consent warning, there was sufficient competent substantial evidence in the narrative portion of arrest affidavit relating to the sequence of events that allowed the Hearing Officer to uphold the driver's suspension for driving with an unlawful breath alcohol level.

Read Opinion Below