May, J.
The State of Indiana appeals the reinstatement of Brandon Scott Schulze’s driving privileges, which had been suspended because he refused to take a chemical test for alcohol intoxication in violation of the Indiana Implied Consent law. See Ind. Code § 9-30-6-7. The trial court reinstated Schulze’s privileges because the deputy who offered the test to Schulze was not certified to administer the test. The State argues the court’s decision was erroneous because Schulze’s refusal to take the test obviated any need for a deputy trained to administer the test. We reverse.
. . . .
Nowhere in the chapter regarding implied consent does it specify that the officer who offers the chemical test must be certified to administer the test. Rather, the chapter explicitly states that the officer can transport an arrestee to someone who is certified to administer a chemical test:
A law enforcement officer may transport the person to a place where the sample may be obtained by any of the following persons who are trained in obtaining bodily substance samples and who have been engaged to obtain samples under this section:
(1) A physician holding an unlimited license to practice medicine or osteopathy.
(2) A registered nurse.
(3) A licensed practical nurse.
(4) An advanced emergency medical technician . . . .
(5) A paramedic . . . .
(6) . . . any other person qualified through training, experience, or education to obtain a bodily substance sample.
Ind. Code § 9-30-6-6(j). The only restriction is that the test must be administered within three hours of the time the officer develops probable cause. Ind. Code § 9-30-6-2(c). Therefore, Deputy Michael’s offer of a chemical test was not illusory simply because he was not qualified to administer such a test. If Schulze had agreed to take the test, Deputy Michael could have found another officer at the jail who was certified to give a chemical test or could have transported Schulze to a hospital or other facility for the test. As Schulze refused to submit to a chemical test, there was no reason for Deputy Michael to find a qualified person or take Schulze to a qualified person. The trial court erred when it determined Deputy Michael’s offer of a chemical test was illusory. [Footnote omitted.] Accordingly, we reverse.
KIRSCH, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.