dissenting. I must dissent. The language of 23 V.S.A. § 1202(a) is too plain on its face to admit of anything but one interpretation: “a mandatory duty on the part of state police officers and law enforcement officers who have the proper certification to request a breath sample when they have reasonable grounds to believe a person was driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” State v. Lund, 144 Vt. 171, 174, 475 A.2d 1055, 1058 (1984).
Inasmuch as the statutory history of § 1202(a) has been previously detailed by this Court in the well-reasoned opinion by Justice Underwood, see id. at 174-76, 475 A.2d at 1058-59, it is unnecessary to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that ever since § 1202(a) was first adopted in 1970, the word “shall,” as set forth therein, has been recognized by this Court to impose a mandatory obligation on designated law enforcement officers. See id. at 176, 475 A.2d at 1059 (“the statute . . . mandates that a test must be requested . . . .”); State v. Welch, 135 Vt. 316, 321, 376 A.2d 351, 355 (1977) (“In those situations contemplated by §§ 1202 and 1203, the officers are required to make the request that the suspect operator submit to testing.”); State v. Mastaler, 130 Vt. 44, 48, 285 A.2d 776, 779 (1971) (“The statute presently provides that ‘a sample shall be taken’ . . . .”).
Indeed, the top law enforcement officer of the state, the attorney general, when asked for an interpretation, opined: “My staff and I have prepared the following analysis of the new D.W.I. statute .... It requires an officer to request a chemical test whenever he has reasonable grounds to believe a person is in violation of the statute.” 1970 Op. Atty. Gen. 226. The opinion concluded that “[i]n the face of such mandatory language, it is possible that an officer would be precluded from testifying as to other evidence of intoxication in cases where he did not request submission to a test.” Id. at 231.
*191I can only conclude that the majority, in abandoning this well-established, recently confirmed statutory interpretation, is doing so for the sole purpose of reaching what it considers to be a desired result. The majority contends that the previous interpretation of the statute did not accord with the underlying legislative purpose. If that is so, then why has the legislature allowed that interpretation to stand for nearly seventeen years? See In re Dixon, 123 Vt. 111, 115, 183 A.2d 522, 524 (1962) (fact that legislature had not seen fit to change the law tended to confirm propriety of attorney general’s opinion issued six years earlier). If the law is to be changed after having been consistently applied over a considerable period of time, then it is the legislature which should make the change, for “it is . . . the legislature, not the courts, which has both the right and duty under our State Constitution to make the laws.” Langle v. Kurkul, 146 Vt. 513, 528, 510 A.2d 1301, 1310 (1986) (Peck, J., dissenting).
The author of the majority opinion, a stalwart defender of legislative prerogatives, appears himself to have succumbed to the Lorelei call of judicial legislation. Although we may not always agree with our legislative colleagues, they are the ones who set the course. Today’s decision “not only ignores the express directives of the statutes, it usurps the primary rights and powers of the legislature to determine public policy.” Payne v. Rozendaal, 147 Vt. 488, 502, 520 A.2d 586, 594 (1986) (Peck, J., dissenting).
I also note that the Court is marching off in a direction not briefed by the parties, other than a wistful reference in the State’s brief to Justice Peck’s dissent in Lund. I cannot partake of such “legal swashbuckling.” Id. at 504, 520 A.2d at 595 (Peck, J., dissenting).
Accordingly, I dissent.