—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant, who had been arrested for driving while intoxicated, had the right to consult with his attorney before deciding whether to consent to a blood test (see, People v Shaw,
We do not agree with defendant that the statements he made to the arresting officer were admitted in violation of his right to counsel. The only relevant information defendant provided was that he drank two light beers and had taken some cough medicine earlier that evening. Defendant spontaneously volunteered that information when the arresting officer asked him to take the blood test, and thus the information was not the product of police interrogation or its functional equivalent (see, People v Reinard,
