In Maxsted v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 982, the motorist was advised of his Miranda rights in terms indicating that he "had the right to have an attorney present before he said anything." After being fully advised of the consequences of refusal to undergo the tests required by section 13353, the driver refused to submit to any of the tests. At the time of this refusal, the driver believed that an attorney was coming to advise him and he refused the chemical tests for that reason. However, he did not communicate the reason for his refusal to the officers ( id., at p. 984). The trial court in Maxsted issued a writ of administrative mandate directing the department to vacate its suspension order, because the court concluded that the evidence did not support the administrative agency's finding that the driver refused to submit to a chemical test. The trial court noted that the driver was confused and misled by the officer's failure to explain that Miranda rights did not extend to advice of counsel in reference to taking the tests; thus, the trial court concluded that suspension was improper because the driver's refusal was "not an intelligent refusal." ( Id., at p. 985.) The appellate court reversed, holding that suspension was proper because there is "no duty imposed upon the officer demanding the test to explain the niceties of the implied consent law" ( id., at p. 987). The court also observed: "Nor is there any requirement of the applicable law that a refusal of the test be 'intelligent' in order to trigger the sanction of suspension of the driver's license." (Ibid.) The court's observation that a refusal need not be "intelligent" was supported by a citation to Bush v. Bright (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 788,. The Maxsted court described this case as "sustaining the suspension of a driver's license for refusal of a test by a suspect found by the trial court on substantial evidence to have been 'incapable of refusing to so submit because of his extreme intoxication'" 5 ( Maxsted, supra, 14 Cal.App.3d at p. 987). The Maxsted opinion stated that in ascertaining whether there has been a refusal which will justify the suspension sanction, "the determining factor is not the state of the suspect driver's mind, it is the fair meaning to be given his response to the demand that he submit to the chemical test" ( id., at p. 986.)