14 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1973–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
South Dakota v. Nevillegreen2 sentences2014The Court later reiterated that revoking the drivers license of a DUI arrestee who refuses to take a blood-alcohol test "is unquestionably legitimate, assuming appropriate procedural protections." South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 560 , 103 S.Ct. 916, 920 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983). 2014The Court later reiterated that revoking the drivers license of a DUI arrestee who refuses to take a blood-alcohol test "is unquestionably legitimate, assuming appropriate procedural protections." South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 560 , 103 S.Ct. 916, 920 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983). | 1 | 4 |
ERC Contractor Yard & Sales v. Robertsongreen1 sentence2005Id. at 215. | 1 | 1 |
Schmerber v. Californiagreen2 sentences1992However, an exception to this general rule was set forth by the Supreme Court in Schmerber v. State of California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), where it was found that an arresting officer could require an individual to submit to a blood alcohol test where the officer reasonably believed that under the circumstances, the delay necessary to secure a warrant could have resulted in the destruction of evidence. 1992However, an exception to this general rule was set forth by the Supreme Court in Schmerber v. State of California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), where it was found that an arresting officer could require an individual to submit to a blood alcohol test where the officer reasonably believed that under the circumstances, the delay necessary to secure a warrant could have resulted in the destruction of evidence. | 1 | 1 |
McCullick v. Stategreen2 sentences1989In McCullick v. State, 682 P.2d 235, 236 (Okl.Cr.1984) the Court denied the admissibility of a refusal to submit to a sobriety test, holding: A plain reading of Oklahoma’s Implied Consent Law, 47 O.S.Supp.1983, §§ 751 et seq, demonstrates that the legislature granted an absolute right to one arrested for DUI to refuse to submit to a test to determine the alcohol content of his blood, although not without certain consequences attaching to said refusal. 1989In McCullick v. State, 682 P.2d 235, 236 (Okl. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blaylock v. State
neutral
1 sentence2005Section 756 uses the word "operate," but in light of Bearden v. State, 1967 OK CR 138 , 480 P.2d 844 and Parker v. State, 1967 OK CR 7 , 424 P.2d 997 (OkLCr1967), indicating that "drive" and "operate" are synonymous, the Commission has used the word "drive" as an element to promote consistency in language among the various instructions. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Sanders v. State
green
2 sentences2005Nevertheless, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decided in Sanders v. State, 2002 OK CR 42, 116-7 , 60 P.3d 1048, 1051 , that this requirement was not applicable in the cireumstances where a blood alcohol test was administered within two hours after a fatality accident in which the defendant could have been arrested at the scene, but was not arrested until approximately one month later. 2005Nevertheless, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decided in Sanders v. State, 2002 OK CR 42, 116-7 , 60 P.3d 1048, 1051 , that this requirement was not applicable in the cireumstances where a blood alcohol test was administered within two hours after a fatality accident in which the defendant could have been arrested at the scene, but was not arrested until approximately one month later. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Parker v. State
green
2 sentences2005Section 756 uses the word "operate," but in light of Bearden v. State, 1967 OK CR 138 , 480 P.2d 844 and Parker v. State, 1967 OK CR 7 , 424 P.2d 997 (OkLCr1967), indicating that "drive" and "operate" are synonymous, the Commission has used the word "drive" as an element to promote consistency in language among the various instructions. 2005Section 756 uses the word "operate," but in light of Bearden v. State, 1967 OK CR 138 , 480 P.2d 844 and Parker v. State, 1967 OK CR 7 , 424 P.2d 997 (OkLCr1967), indicating that "drive" and "operate" are synonymous, the Commission has used the word "drive" as an element to promote consistency in language among the various instructions. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Guest v. State
green
1 sentence2002In his first proposition of error, Appellant contends the results of the blood alcohol test should not have been admitted at trial, as he was not under arrest at the time his blood was withdrawn. ¶ 5 In Guest v. State, 42 P.3d 289 (Okl.Cr.2002), this Court held that under 47 O.S.Supp.1999, § 752(B) a person does not have to be placed under arrest before his or her blood can be withdrawn for drug or alcohol testing. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ross v. State
green
2 sentences1989The Tho-mason decision was reaffirmed in Ross v. State, 556 P.2d 638 (Okl.Cr.1976), wherein the Court admitted the results of a breathalyzer test and stated that there is no need to quote the Miranda warnings prior to administering the blood alcohol test. 1989The Thomason decision was reaffirmed in Ross v. State, 556 P.2d 638 (Okl.Cr. 1976), wherein the Court admitted the results of a breathalyzer test and stated that there is no need to quote the Miranda warnings prior to administering the blood alcohol test. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Sartin v. State
green
1 sentence1987Sartin v. State, 617 P.2d 219 (Okl.Cr.1980); Billy v. State, 602 P.2d 237 (Okl.Cr.1979). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Billy v. State
green
1 sentence1987Sartin v. State, 617 P.2d 219 (Okl.Cr.1980); Billy v. State, 602 P.2d 237 (Okl.Cr.1979). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Helvering v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1986United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, supra note 11, 465 U.S. at 361-362 , 104 S.Ct. at 1103; Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 397 , 58 S.Ct. 630, 632 , 82 L.Ed. 917 [1938]; Commonwealth, Dept. of Transportation v. Abraham, supra note 11, 300 A.2d at 832 and Annot., 96 A.L.R.2d 612 , supra note 9 at 614. 13 . 1986United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, supra note 11, 465 U.S. at 361-362 , 104 S.Ct. at 1103; Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 397 , 58 S.Ct. 630, 632 , 82 L.Ed. 917 [1938]; Commonwealth, Dept. of Transportation v. Abraham, supra note 11, 300 A.2d at 832 and Annot., 96 A.L.R.2d 612 , supra note 9 at 614. 13 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Commonwealth v. Abraham
green
1 sentence1986United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, supra note 11, 465 U.S. at 361-362 , 104 S.Ct. at 1103; Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 397 , 58 S.Ct. 630, 632 , 82 L.Ed. 917 [1938]; Commonwealth, Dept. of Transportation v. Abraham, supra note 11, 300 A.2d at 832 and Annot., 96 A.L.R.2d 612 , supra note 9 at 614. 13 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms
green
1 sentence1986United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, supra note 11, 465 U.S. at 361-362 , 104 S.Ct. at 1103; Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 397 , 58 S.Ct. 630, 632 , 82 L.Ed. 917 [1938]; Commonwealth, Dept. of Transportation v. Abraham, supra note 11, 300 A.2d at 832 and Annot., 96 A.L.R.2d 612 , supra note 9 at 614. 13 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Wood
green
1 sentence1979State v. Wood, Okl.Cr., 576 P.2d 1181 (1978). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Davis v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences1978The exclusionary rule has also been applied to fingerprints taken from a defendant following an illegal arrest, Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S.Ct. 1394 , 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969); to blood alcohol tests, Richardson v. State, Okl.Cr., 511 P.2d 1127 (1973), wherein the defendant, following an illegal arrest, was taken to a hospital for a blood alcohol test and then booked into jail. 1978The exclusionary rule has also been applied to fingerprints taken from a defendant following an illegal arrest, Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S.Ct. 1394 , 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969); to blood alcohol tests, Richardson v. State, Okl.Cr., 511 P.2d 1127 (1973), wherein the defendant, following an illegal arrest, was taken to a hospital for a blood alcohol test and then booked into jail. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Richardson v. State
green
1 sentence1978The exclusionary rule has also been applied to fingerprints taken from a defendant following an illegal arrest, Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S.Ct. 1394 , 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969); to blood alcohol tests, Richardson v. State, Okl.Cr., 511 P.2d 1127 (1973), wherein the defendant, following an illegal arrest, was taken to a hospital for a blood alcohol test and then booked into jail. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Carson
neutral
1 sentence1976This court previously answered this question in State v. Carson, Okl.Cr., 512 P.2d 825 (1973), wherein we held: “. . . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1976He further contends that it was error to admit the results of the test because he was never advised of his constitutional rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). *640 The defendant premises his argument by stating that consent to a blood alcohol test under the Oklahoma Implied Consent Law, 47 O.S.1971, § 751-760 constitutes an incriminating statement. 1976He further contends that it was error to admit the results of the test because he was never advised of his constitutional rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). *640 The defendant premises his argument by stating that consent to a blood alcohol test under the Oklahoma Implied Consent Law, 47 O.S.1971, § 751-760 constitutes an incriminating statement. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Perry v. City of Oklahoma City
green
1 sentence1974However, in Perry, supra, the syllabus by the Court reads: “The results of a blood-alcohol test derived from a sample of blood, when the identity and integrity of the sample are established, are not within the eviden-tiary exclusion of 63 O.S.1961, § 949, unless the blood-alcohol test was performed pursuant to 63 O.S.1961, §§ 931-955, the Unexplained Deaths Act.” Both Barger, and Perry dealt with the issue of admissibility of the results of blood tests bearing upon the ultimate issue of alcoholic content. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Robertson v. State Ex Rel. Lester
green
1 sentence1973Lester, supra, an appeal from an administrative hearing suspending defendant’s driver’s license after he refused a blood-alcohol test, the court held that there was no right in that instance to the presence of counsel since the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is limited to criminal proceedings and *589 the case in question was administrative. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.