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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernardgreen2 sentences2017He was charged with refusing to submit to a BAC test, but the state trial court dismissed the charges, concluding the warrantless breath test Bernard refused to take was not permitted under the Fourth Amendment. ( Birchfield , at p. ---- [ 136 S.Ct. at p. 2171 ].) The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, concluding a warrantless breath test is permissible under the Fourth Amendment as a search-incident-to-arrest. ( Birchfield , at p. ---- [ 136 S.Ct. at p. 2171 ].) In the third and final case, a police officer saw petitioner Beylund unsuccessfully turn into a driveway, almost hit a stop sign, and 2017He was charged with refusing to submit to a BAC test, but the state trial court dismissed the charges, concluding the warrantless breath test Bernard refused to take was not permitted under the Fourth Amendment. ( Birchfield , at p. ---- [ 136 S.Ct. at p. 2171 ].) The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, concluding a warrantless breath test is permissible under the Fourth Amendment as a search-incident-to-arrest. ( Birchfield , at p. ---- [ 136 S.Ct. at p. 2171 ].) In the third and final case, a police officer saw petitioner Beylund unsuccessfully turn into a driveway, almost hit a stop sign, and | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences2017"In Schmerber [ v. California (1966) 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 ( Schmerber ) ], the defendant was taken to the hospital following an automobile accident and, against his express refusal on the advice of counsel, the police directed a physician to draw defendant's blood to be tested for the presence of alcohol. ( Schmerber , supra , 384 U.S. at pp. 758-759 [ 86 S.Ct. 1826 ].) Among other things, the United States Supreme Court in Schmerber addressed whether the warrantless blood test violated the Fourth Amendment. 2017"In Schmerber [ v. California (1966) 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 ( Schmerber ) ], the defendant was taken to the hospital following an automobile accident and, against his express refusal on the advice of counsel, the police directed a physician to draw defendant's blood to be tested for the presence of alcohol. ( Schmerber , supra , 384 U.S. at pp. 758-759 [ 86 S.Ct. 1826 ].) Among other things, the United States Supreme Court in Schmerber addressed whether the warrantless blood test violated the Fourth Amendment. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Espinoza v. Shiomoto
green
2 sentences2024Rather than decide whether Espinoza’s license could be lawfully suspended based solely on her refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test, we conclude her license was lawfully suspended because she did not submit to a warrantless breath test.” (Espinoza, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 114 .) Here, of course, the facts differ from those in Espinoza. 2024The Espinoza court stated that, under Birchfield, “the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the police from forcing a motorist to submit to a warrantless breath test incident to his or her arrest, the motorist 27 has no right to refuse to submit to a breath test or to condition his or her submission on the police obtaining a warrant, and the motorist’s refusal to submit to the breath test may be the basis of criminal penalties. [Citation.] In light of that clear holding, we conclude refusal to submit to a breath test incident to arrest may also be the basis of imposing civil penalties under the | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Riley v. Cal. United States
green
2 sentences2018Gutierrez likened the choice he faced between breath and blood testing to a defendant arrested in his car for drug possession who is then given a choice between two searches: a warrantless search of his car, which the constitution allows (Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332, 350 ), and a warrantless search of his cellphone, which it does not 9 (Riley v. California, supra, 134 S.Ct. 2473 ). 2018Gutierrez likened the choice he faced between breath and blood testing to a defendant arrested in his car for drug possession who is then given a choice between two searches: a warrantless search of his car, which the constitution allows ( Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332 , 350, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 ), and a warrantless search of his cellphone, which it does not ( Riley v. California , supra, 134 S.Ct. 2473 ). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Arizona v. Gant
green
2 sentences2018Gutierrez likened the choice he faced between breath and blood testing to a defendant arrested in his car for drug possession who is then given a choice between two searches: a warrantless search of his car, which the constitution allows ( Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332 , 350, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 ), and a warrantless search of his cellphone, which it does not ( Riley v. California , supra, 134 S.Ct. 2473 ). 2018Gutierrez likened the choice he faced between breath and blood testing to a defendant arrested in his car for drug possession who is then given a choice between two searches: a warrantless search of his car, which the constitution allows ( Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332 , 350, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 ), and a warrantless search of his cellphone, which it does not ( Riley v. California , supra, 134 S.Ct. 2473 ). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
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.