Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernardgreen2 sentences2020In fact, the Court stated, “[n]othing prevents the police from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so in the particular circumstances or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not.” Id. (citing McNeely, 569 U.S., at __, 133 S.Ct., at 1568). 2019The Court reasoned that "[n]othing prevents the police from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so in the particular circumstances or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not." Birchfield , 136 S.Ct. at 2184 (emphasis added). | 3 | 6 |
Missouri v. McNeelygreen2 sentences2017The Court nevertheless concluded that when the police need such information, “[njothing prevents [them] from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so ... or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not.” Id. (citing Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1568 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013)). 6 The Court next addressed whether a warrantless blood test is permissible under the implied-consent exception to the warrant requirement. 2017The Court nevertheless concluded that when the police need such information, “[njothing prevents [them] from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so ... or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not.” Id. (citing Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1568 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013)). 6 The Court next addressed whether a warrantless blood test is permissible under the implied-consent exception to the warrant requirement. | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. O'ROURKE.green2 sentences1984See Commonwealth v. O’Rourke, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 580 , 361 A.2d 496 (1976) and authorities there cited. 1984See Commonwealth v. O’Rourke, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 580 , 361 A.2d 496 (1976) and authorities there cited. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.