7 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Wagergreen2 sentences2019Our Supreme Court has recognized that MCL 257.625a(6)(a) is a “flat statement” of admissibility, and that “[p]ursuant to the express language of the statute, test results ‘are admissible . . . and will be considered.’ ” People v Wager, 460 Mich 118, 121, 124-125 ; 594 NW2d 487 (1999), citing MCL 257.625a(6)(b)(ii). 2019Our Supreme Court has recognized that MCL 257.625a(6)(a) is a “flat statement” of admissibility, and that “[p]ursuant to the express language of the statute, test results ‘are admissible . . . and will be considered.’ ” People v Wager, 460 Mich 118, 121, 124-125 ; 594 NW2d 487 (1999), citing MCL 257.625a(6)(b)(ii). | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Secretary of Stategreen1 sentence2011By its terms, this statute gives drivers the option of (1) taking a test as requested by an officer, (2) taking the requested test and then procuring his or her own test, or (3) refusing a test and having his or her license suspended.7 Likewise, subsection (iv) explicitly provides that, if a person refuses the request of an officer to take a chemical breath test, a test shall not be given without a court order.8 This provision effectively codifies the Fourth Amendment protection from a warrantless 7 See also Collins v Secretary of State, 384 Mich 656, 667 (1971). 8 MCL 257.625a(6)(b)(iv). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Snydergreen2 sentences2011See also People v Snyder, 181 Mich App 768, 771 (1989) (“We conclude only that a search warrant is encompassed within the term ‘court order’ for purposes of this statute . . . .”). 4 search and the principle that an officer may not lawfully compel a chemical breath test without a warrant. 2011See also People v Snyder, 181 Mich App 768, 771 (1989) (“We conclude only that a search warrant is encompassed within the term ‘court order’ for purposes of this statute . . . .”). 4 search and the principle that an officer may not lawfully compel a chemical breath test without a warrant. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Strattongreen2 sentences1993See People v Stratton, 148 Mich App 70 ; 384 NW2d 83 (1985); People v Hayes, 64 Mich App 203 ; 235 NW2d 182 (1975). 1993See People v Stratton, 148 Mich App 70 ; 384 NW2d 83 (1985); People v Hayes, 64 Mich App 203 ; 235 NW2d 182 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Kimble
green
2 sentences2017See also MCL 769.34(10); People v Kimble, 470 Mich 305, 310 ; 684 NW2d 669 (2004). -2- (6) The following provisions apply with respect to chemical tests and analysis of a person’s blood, urine, or breath, other than a preliminary chemical breath analysis: *** (e) If, after an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident is transported to a medical facility and a sample of the driver's blood is withdrawn at that time for medical treatment, the results of a chemical analysis of that sample are admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding to show the amount of alcohol or presence 2017See also MCL 769.34(10); People v Kimble, 470 Mich 305, 310 ; 684 NW2d 669 (2004). -2- (6) The following provisions apply with respect to chemical tests and analysis of a person’s blood, urine, or breath, other than a preliminary chemical breath analysis: *** (e) If, after an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident is transported to a medical facility and a sample of the driver's blood is withdrawn at that time for medical treatment, the results of a chemical analysis of that sample are admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding to show the amount of alcohol or presence | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Jones
green
2 sentences2020People v Jones, 270 Mich App 208, 217 ; 714 NW2d 362 (2006). 2 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). 3 While it does not affect our analysis on this issue, we additionally note that the trial court ruled on defendant’s pretrial evidentiary motions, including the motions about the breathalyzer test, at the conclusion of trial. -3- However, the Michigan Legislature, in enacting MCL 257.625a(6)(a), has eliminated the general rule regarding the foundation needed for admission of chemical test results of a person’s breath: (6) The following 2020People v Jones, 270 Mich App 208, 217 ; 714 NW2d 362 (2006). 2 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). 3 While it does not affect our analysis on this issue, we additionally note that the trial court ruled on defendant’s pretrial evidentiary motions, including the motions about the breathalyzer test, at the conclusion of trial. -3- However, the Michigan Legislature, in enacting MCL 257.625a(6)(a), has eliminated the general rule regarding the foundation needed for admission of chemical test results of a person’s breath: (6) The following | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020People v Jones, 270 Mich App 208, 217 ; 714 NW2d 362 (2006). 2 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). 3 While it does not affect our analysis on this issue, we additionally note that the trial court ruled on defendant’s pretrial evidentiary motions, including the motions about the breathalyzer test, at the conclusion of trial. -3- However, the Michigan Legislature, in enacting MCL 257.625a(6)(a), has eliminated the general rule regarding the foundation needed for admission of chemical test results of a person’s breath: (6) The following 2020People v Jones, 270 Mich App 208, 217 ; 714 NW2d 362 (2006). 2 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). 3 While it does not affect our analysis on this issue, we additionally note that the trial court ruled on defendant’s pretrial evidentiary motions, including the motions about the breathalyzer test, at the conclusion of trial. -3- However, the Michigan Legislature, in enacting MCL 257.625a(6)(a), has eliminated the general rule regarding the foundation needed for admission of chemical test results of a person’s breath: (6) The following | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2020In People v Campbell, 236 Mich App 490, 506 ; 601 NW2d 114 (1999), this Court interpreted the implied consent statute, MCL 257.625a, in the context of a challenge regarding whether the test was performed within a reasonable time. 2020In People v Campbell, 236 Mich App 490, 506 ; 601 NW2d 114 (1999), this Court interpreted the implied consent statute, MCL 257.625a, in the context of a challenge regarding whether the test was performed within a reasonable time. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Fosnaugh
green
2 sentences2020People v Jones, 270 Mich App 208, 217 ; 714 NW2d 362 (2006). 2 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). 3 While it does not affect our analysis on this issue, we additionally note that the trial court ruled on defendant’s pretrial evidentiary motions, including the motions about the breathalyzer test, at the conclusion of trial. -3- However, the Michigan Legislature, in enacting MCL 257.625a(6)(a), has eliminated the general rule regarding the foundation needed for admission of chemical test results of a person’s breath: (6) The following 2020People v Jones, 270 Mich App 208, 217 ; 714 NW2d 362 (2006). 2 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). 3 While it does not affect our analysis on this issue, we additionally note that the trial court ruled on defendant’s pretrial evidentiary motions, including the motions about the breathalyzer test, at the conclusion of trial. -3- However, the Michigan Legislature, in enacting MCL 257.625a(6)(a), has eliminated the general rule regarding the foundation needed for admission of chemical test results of a person’s breath: (6) The following | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Platte v. Thomas Township
green
2 sentences2009However, the Spencer court found that exigent circumstances must be considered on a case-by-case basis because the “time necessary to obtain a warrant in cases that fall within the scope of the ordinance does not create an exigency as a matter of legislative fact, nor does it serve to establish an automatic exemption from the warrant requirement.” Id. at 944 . *519 In Platte, 504 F Supp 2d at 230-231 , the federal district court considered MCL 436.1703(6), which provides: A peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe a minor has consumed alcoholic liquor or has any bodily alcohol content 2009In Platte , several plaintiffs brought claims under 42 USC 1983 against Thomas Township and other municipalities, as well as the Governor of Michigan and the director of the Michigan State Police, arguing that MCL 436.1703(6) was “unconstitutional insofar as it authorized police officers to compel minors to submit to breath tests for alcohol in the absence of a warrant or circumstances excusing the requirement of a search warrant.” Platte, 504 F Supp 2d at 230 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Spencer v. City of Bay City
green
2 sentences2009In Spencer, 292 F Supp 2d at 935 , the federal district court considered a Bay City ordinance that provided: A peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe a person less than 21 years of age has consumed alcoholic liquor may require the person to submit to a preliminary chemical breath test analysis. 2009However, the Spencer court found that exigent circumstances must be considered on a case-by-case basis because the “time necessary to obtain a warrant in cases that fall within the scope of the ordinance does not create an exigency as a matter of legislative fact, nor does it serve to establish an automatic exemption from the warrant requirement.” Id. at 944 . *519 In Platte, 504 F Supp 2d at 230-231 , the federal district court considered MCL 436.1703(6), which provides: A peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe a minor has consumed alcoholic liquor or has any bodily alcohol content | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Hayes
green
2 sentences1993See People v Stratton, 148 Mich App 70 ; 384 NW2d 83 (1985); People v Hayes, 64 Mich App 203 ; 235 NW2d 182 (1975). 1993See People v Stratton, 148 Mich App 70 ; 384 NW2d 83 (1985); People v Hayes, 64 Mich App 203 ; 235 NW2d 182 (1975). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.