7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C.green2 sentences2014But the Fifth Amendment does not apply to non-testimonial evidence, State v. Thornton, 187 Ariz. 325, 331 , 929 P.2d 676, 682 (1996), and “refusal to take a chemical breath test is not testimonial evidence.” State v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 574, 578 , 744 P.2d 675, 679 (1987). 2014But the Fifth Amendment does not apply to non-testimonial evidence, State v. Thornton, 187 Ariz. 325, 331 , 929 P.2d 676, 682 (1996), and “refusal to take a chemical breath test is not testimonial evidence.” State v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 574, 578 , 744 P.2d 675, 679 (1987). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Thorntongreen2 sentences2014But the Fifth Amendment does not apply to non-testimonial evidence, State v. Thornton, 187 Ariz. 325, 331 , 929 P.2d 676, 682 (1996), and “refusal to take a chemical breath test is not testimonial evidence.” State v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 574, 578 , 744 P.2d 675, 679 (1987). 2014But the Fifth Amendment does not apply to non-testimonial evidence, State v. Thornton, 187 Ariz. 325, 331 , 929 P.2d 676, 682 (1996), and “refusal to take a chemical breath test is not testimonial evidence.” State v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 574, 578 , 744 P.2d 675, 679 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Munizgreen2 sentences1995“Because the evidence is non-testimonial, no statement in connection with the refusal being in issue, no warning, such as required by [Miranda ] is necessary.” State v. Superior Ct. (Gilliland), 149 Ariz. 601, 603 , 721 P.2d 149, 151 (App.1986); see also Muniz, 496 U.S. at 604-05 , 110 S.Ct. at 2652 . 1995“Because the evidence is non-testimonial, no statement in connection with the refusal being in issue, no warning, such as required by [Miranda ] is necessary.” State v. Superior Ct. (Gilliland), 149 Ariz. 601, 603 , 721 P.2d 149, 151 (App.1986); see also Muniz, 496 U.S. at 604-05 , 110 S.Ct. at 2652 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Superior Court of Pima Countygreen2 sentences1995“Because the evidence is non-testimonial, no statement in connection with the refusal being in issue, no warning, such as required by [Miranda ] is necessary.” State v. Superior Ct. (Gilliland), 149 Ariz. 601, 603 , 721 P.2d 149, 151 (App.1986); see also Muniz, 496 U.S. at 604-05 , 110 S.Ct. at 2652 . 1995“Because the evidence is non-testimonial, no statement in connection with the refusal being in issue, no warning, such as required by [Miranda ] is necessary.” State v. Superior Ct. (Gilliland), 149 Ariz. 601, 603 , 721 P.2d 149, 151 (App.1986); see also Muniz, 496 U.S. at 604-05 , 110 S.Ct. at 2652 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thorntongreen2 sentences1995Moreover, “refusal to take a chemical breath test is not testimonial evidence but physical evidence only and therefore admissible at a criminal trial for DUI.” State v. Superior Ct. (Ahrens), 154 Ariz. 574, 578 , 744 P.2d 675, 679 (1987); see also State v. Thornton, 172 Ariz. 449, 452 , 837 P.2d 1184, 1187 (App.1992). 1995Moreover, “refusal to take a chemical breath test is not testimonial evidence but physical evidence only and therefore admissible at a criminal trial for DUI.” State v. Superior Ct. (Ahrens), 154 Ariz. 574, 578 , 744 P.2d 675, 679 (1987); see also State v. Thornton, 172 Ariz. 449, 452 , 837 P.2d 1184, 1187 (App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Juarezgreen2 sentences1995Juarez, 161 Ariz. at 81 , 775 P.2d at 1145 (“[i]n-forming the driver that he may not call his attorney before taking the test” violates the driver’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment). 1995Juarez, 161 Ariz. at 81 , 775 P.2d at 1145 (“[i]n-forming the driver that he may not call his attorney before taking the test” violates the driver’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment). | 1 | 1 |
Severson v. Sueppelgreen2 sentences1985We have held for example that the suspension of a driver’s license for failure to submit to a chemical breath test pursuant to our implied consent law, A.R.S. § 28-692, is civil in nature, stating: In Severson v. Sueppel, 260 Iowa 1169 , 152 N.W.2d 281, 285 (1967) the court noted that the operation of a motor vehicle may give rise to both a civil and administrative licensing procedure and a criminal action. 1985We have held for example that the suspension of a driver’s license for failure to submit to a chemical breath test pursuant to our implied consent law, A.R.S. § 28-692, is civil in nature, stating: In Severson v. Sueppel, 260 Iowa 1169 , 152 N.W.2d 281, 285 (1967) the court noted that the operation of a motor vehicle may give rise to both a civil and administrative licensing procedure and a criminal action. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
South Dakota v. Neville
green
2 sentences1987Justice O’Connor, author of the Court’s opinion, stated: South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 565 , 103 S.Ct. 916, 922-23 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted). 1987Justice O’Connor, author of the Court’s opinion, stated: South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 565 , 103 S.Ct. 916, 922-23 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted). | 2 | 1987–1987 |
McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Ariz.
green
2 sentences1984As noted by appellant, we dismissed the case with prejudice having found that “the state’s action foreclosed a fair trial by preventing petitioner from collecting exculpatory evidence no longer available.” McNutt, supra, at 10 , 648 P.2d at 125 . 1984As noted by appellant, we dismissed the case with prejudice having found that "the state's action foreclosed a fair trial by preventing petitioner from collecting exculpatory evidence no longer available." McNutt, supra, at 10 , *484 648 P.2d at 125 . | 2 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Ward
green
2 sentences2014Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is limited to criminal consequences, United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248 , 100 S.Ct. 2636 , 65 L.Ed.2d 742 (1980), but a license suspension pursuant to our implied consent law is a civil proceeding. 2014Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is limited to criminal consequences, United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248 , 100 S.Ct. 2636 , 65 L.Ed.2d 742 (1980), but a license suspension pursuant to our implied consent law is a civil proceeding. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Campbell v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1987Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542 , 479 P.2d 685 (1971). 1987Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542 , 479 P.2d 685 (1971). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Smith v. Arizona Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences1987State v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 146 Ariz. 430 , 706 P.2d 756 (1985). 1987State v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 146 Ariz. 430 , 706 P.2d 756 (1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.