In Hudson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 830 A.2d 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), the police officer attempted to read the motorist the implied consent warning three times, but in response, the motorist interrupted repeatedly and caused an altercation that required handcuff restraints. The Court noted: A motorist's refusal to submit need not be expressed in words; rather, a motorist's conduct may demonstrate a refusal to submit to chemical testing. See, e.g., Renwick Dep't of Transp. v. Renwick, 543 Pa. 122, 669 A.2d 934 (1996) (motorist who closed her eyes, turned her head and ignored requests to submit to testing refused to submit); McCloskey v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver's Licensing, 722 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth.1999) (motorist who stalled for eight minutes after being read implied consent warnings refused to submit). "The frustration of purpose doctrine provides that a refusal under section 1547 can be implied from the conduct of the licensee which obstructs or frustrates the administration of the chemical test." McCamey v. Commonwealth, 144 Pa. Commw. 292, 601 A.2d 471, 472, n. 2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). Id. at 599.