Ark. Code Ann. » Title 5 Chapter 65
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-201 (2026)

Rules

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The Department of Health may promulgate rules reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter.

History. Acts 1969, No. 106, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 75-1046; Acts 2019, No. 315, § 168.

Amendments. The 2019 amendment deleted “and regulations” following “Rules” in the section heading; and deleted “and regulations” following “rules” in the text.

Case Notes

Cited: Watson v. Frierson, 272 Ark. 316, 613 S.W.2d 824 (1981); Hughes v. State, 17 Ark. App. 34, 705 S.W.2d 455 (1986); Porter v. State, 82 Ark. App. 589, 120 S.W.3d 178 (2003).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1988–2015 · leading case: Porter v. State, 120 S.W.3d 178 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Porter v. State, 120 S.W.3d 178 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Appellant argues (1) that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of driving while intoxicated because the blood test taken in accordance with Ark.Code Ann. § 5-65-201 (Repl.1997) showed a chemical analysis of .”
Patrick v. State, 750 S.W.2d 391 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-65-201 to -207 (1987).”
Elser v. State, 89 S.W.3d 353 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-201 — 207 (Repl. 1997); Patrick, supra.”
Logan v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 693 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015). “The court noted that Arkansas’s implied-consent laws, which are contained in Arkansas Code Annotated sections 5-65-201 et seq., are based on the well-established consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.”
Robin v. State, 870 S.W.2d 395 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Although the trial court said its finding was based upon implied consent as provided under the first condition of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-201 (a) (Supp. 1991), the trial court did not make a finding, at the time it ruled on the motion, that appellant was driving while intoxicated.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.