12 California opinions name it 3 courts 2015–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Quesada v. Orrgreen2 sentences2017(Cf. White v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 794 , 798-800, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 [motorist's refusal to submit to a breath test, after she agreed to submit to a blood test but the attempt to take her blood proved unsuccessful, constituted refusal to submit to a chemical test]; Quesada v. Orr (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 866 , 870-871, 92 Cal.Rptr. 640 [when a motorist chose to submit to a urine test under § 13353 but was unable to produce a sample, he was required to complete either a blood or breath test and his failure to do so constituted a refusal].) Under the implied consent l 2017(Cf. White v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 794 , 798-800, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 [motorist's refusal to submit to a breath test, after she agreed to submit to a blood test but the attempt to take her blood proved unsuccessful, constituted refusal to submit to a chemical test]; Quesada v. Orr (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 866 , 870-871, 92 Cal.Rptr. 640 [when a motorist chose to submit to a urine test under § 13353 but was unable to produce a sample, he was required to complete either a blood or breath test and his failure to do so constituted a refusal].) Under the implied consent l | 2 | 3 |
White v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2017(Cf. White v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 794 , 798-800, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 [motorist's refusal to submit to a breath test, after she agreed to submit to a blood test but the attempt to take her blood proved unsuccessful, constituted refusal to submit to a chemical test]; Quesada v. Orr (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 866 , 870-871, 92 Cal.Rptr. 640 [when a motorist chose to submit to a urine test under § 13353 but was unable to produce a sample, he was required to complete either a blood or breath test and his failure to do so constituted a refusal].) Under the implied consent l 2017(Cf. White v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 794 , 798-800, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 [motorist's refusal to submit to a breath test, after she agreed to submit to a blood test but the attempt to take her blood proved unsuccessful, constituted refusal to submit to a chemical test]; Quesada v. Orr (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 866 , 870-871, 92 Cal.Rptr. 640 [when a motorist chose to submit to a urine test under § 13353 but was unable to produce a sample, he was required to complete either a blood or breath test and his failure to do so constituted a refusal].) Under the implied consent l | 2 | 3 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2018"Defendant responded, 'okay,' and [the deputy] testified that at no time did defendant appear unwilling to provide a blood sample." ( Id . at p. 678, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) On appeal, defendant argued that the deputy's "admonition under the implied consent law was false" because he said "that a blood test was 'the only option' available." ( Id . at p. 691, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) Defendant contended that a motorist in his situation "must be given the choice between a blood or breath test and may only be compelled to take a blood test 'if the officer has a clear indication that a blood test will 2018"Defendant responded, 'okay,' and [the deputy] testified that at no time did defendant appear unwilling to provide a blood sample." ( Id . at p. 678, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) On appeal, defendant argued that the deputy's "admonition under the implied consent law was false" because he said "that a blood test was 'the only option' available." ( Id . at p. 691, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) Defendant contended that a motorist in his situation "must be given the choice between a blood or breath test and may only be compelled to take a blood test 'if the officer has a clear indication that a blood test will | 1 | 4 |
People v. Ibarragreen2 sentences2019(See also, People v. Ibarra (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 60 , 65, 170 Cal.Rptr. 440 [defendant did not contend that police had made any false or misleading statements to procure his consent]; People v. Balov (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 696 , 702-03, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 235 [officer correctly told defendant under implied consent law that he had a choice of blood or breath test, he just omitted a recitation of the consequences if defendant refused; court held advisement merely incomplete not false.) Here, defendant was told he had to take a blood or breath test. 2019(See also, People v. Ibarra (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 60 , 65, 170 Cal.Rptr. 440 [defendant did not contend that police had made any false or misleading statements to procure his consent]; People v. Balov (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 696 , 702-03, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 235 [officer correctly told defendant under implied consent law that he had a choice of blood or breath test, he just omitted a recitation of the consequences if defendant refused; court held advisement merely incomplete not false.) Here, defendant was told he had to take a blood or breath test. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Balovgreen2 sentences2019(See also, People v. Ibarra (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 60 , 65, 170 Cal.Rptr. 440 [defendant did not contend that police had made any false or misleading statements to procure his consent]; People v. Balov (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 696 , 702-03, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 235 [officer correctly told defendant under implied consent law that he had a choice of blood or breath test, he just omitted a recitation of the consequences if defendant refused; court held advisement merely incomplete not false.) Here, defendant was told he had to take a blood or breath test. 2019(See also, People v. Ibarra (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 60 , 65, 170 Cal.Rptr. 440 [defendant did not contend that police had made any false or misleading statements to procure his consent]; People v. Balov (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 696 , 702-03, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 235 [officer correctly told defendant under implied consent law that he had a choice of blood or breath test, he just omitted a recitation of the consequences if defendant refused; court held advisement merely incomplete not false.) Here, defendant was told he had to take a blood or breath test. | 1 | 2 |
Cash v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2017(See, e.g., Cash v. Commonwealth (1996) 251 Va. 46 , 466 S.E.2d 736 , 738 ["The consent to submit to a blood or breath test, granted when a person operates a motor vehicle upon the highways, 'is not a qualified consent and it is not a conditional consent, and therefore there can be no qualified refusal or conditional refusal to take the test.' [Citation.]"].) Therefore, although "conditional consent" has become somewhat of a term of art in these types of cases, we will use the more precise phrase "purported consent" in this opinion. 2017(See, e.g., Cash v. Commonwealth (1996) 251 Va. 46 , 466 S.E.2d 736 , 738 ["The consent to submit to a blood or breath test, granted when a person operates a motor vehicle upon the highways, 'is not a qualified consent and it is not a conditional consent, and therefore there can be no qualified refusal or conditional refusal to take the test.' [Citation.]"].) Therefore, although "conditional consent" has become somewhat of a term of art in these types of cases, we will use the more precise phrase "purported consent" in this opinion. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Miles
green
1 sentence2026(Miles, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 577 .) In his motion, Feghhi asserted that Officer Marquez failed to comply with the implied consent law “in two separate ways” – by failing to honor Feghhi’s “ ‘choice’ ” between a blood or breath test (Veh. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Schmerber v. California
green
1 sentence2025(E.g., Schmerber v. Cal. (1966) 384 U.S. 757, 765 .) In Schmerber, the Supreme Court explained that requiring an individual to participate in chemical blood testing did not compel the defendant to be a witness against himself and therefore did not implicate the Fifth Amendment. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Troppman v. Valverde
green
2 sentences2019Code, § 23612, subd. (a)(2)(A).) This statute only applies to those who drive. ( Troppman v. Valverde (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1121 , 1139, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 306 , 156 P.3d 328 ["[S]ection 23612 applies broadly and generally to 'those who drive'-that is, to those who avail themselves of the public streets, roads, and highways to operate motor vehicles in this state."].) The parties agree that Harbors and Navigation Code section 655.1 applies here. 2019Code, § 23612, subd. (a)(2)(A).) This statute only applies to those who drive. ( Troppman v. Valverde (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1121 , 1139, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 306 , 156 P.3d 328 ["[S]ection 23612 applies broadly and generally to 'those who drive'-that is, to those who avail themselves of the public streets, roads, and highways to operate motor vehicles in this state."].) The parties agree that Harbors and Navigation Code section 655.1 applies here. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Noli v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2018In Noli v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 446 , 178 Cal.Rptr. 5 ( Noli ), Noli was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving and taken to a medical center where an officer properly admonished him about the consequences of refusing chemical testing. ( Id. at p. 448, 178 Cal.Rptr. 5 .) Noli refused a blood or breath test, but agreed to a urine test. 2018In Noli v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 446 , 178 Cal.Rptr. 5 ( Noli ), Noli was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving and taken to a medical center where an officer properly admonished him about the consequences of refusing chemical testing. ( Id. at p. 448, 178 Cal.Rptr. 5 .) Noli refused a blood or breath test, but agreed to a urine test. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Diaz
red
1 sentence2015Regarding investigatory testing, section 23612, subdivision (h) states that a preliminary alcohol screening test based on a breath sample that is used to establish reasonable cause that the person was driving under the influence "is a field sobriety test and may be used by an officer as a further investigative tool." Section 23612, subdivision (i) sets forth the advisements the officer must provide concerning the preliminary alcohol screening test, including that the officer is requesting the screening to assist in determining if the person is under the influence; the person has the right to r | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Humphreys
green
1 sentence2015Regarding investigatory testing, section 23612, subdivision (h) states that a preliminary alcohol screening test based on a breath sample that is used to establish reasonable cause that the person was driving under the influence "is a field sobriety test and may be used by an officer as a further investigative tool." Section 23612, subdivision (i) sets forth the advisements the officer must provide concerning the preliminary alcohol screening test, including that the officer is requesting the screening to assist in determining if the person is under the influence; the person has the right to r | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2015Regarding investigatory testing, section 23612, subdivision (h) states that a preliminary alcohol screening test based on a breath sample that is used to establish reasonable cause that the person was driving under the influence "is a field sobriety test and may be used by an officer as a further investigative tool." Section 23612, subdivision (i) sets forth the advisements the officer must provide concerning the preliminary alcohol screening test, including that the officer is requesting the screening to assist in determining if the person is under the influence; the person has the right to r | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.