How have the courts interpreted the words "could be suspended" in a license admonition?

Petitioner first asserts he was improperly advised of the legal consequences of failure to submit to or complete a chemical test. Petitioner refers to the transcript of the formal hearing wherein the [148 Cal.App.3d 169] arresting officer testified at one point in conclusionary terms that he told petitioner his driver's license "could" be suspended if he refused to submit to a chemical test. Petitioner cites Decker v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1972) 6 Cal.3d 903, 101 Cal.Rptr. 387, 495 P.2d 1307, for the proposition that an arresting officer's use of the words "could be suspended" in a license suspension admonition does not give sufficient warning of the legal consequences of refusal to submit to or complete a chemical test and therefore cannot be used as a basis for suspension. (Id., at pp. 905-907, 101 Cal.Rptr. 387, 495 P.2d 1307.)