6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zier v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, Inc.green1 sentence2024Zier v. Shamrock Dairy of Phx., Inc., 4 Ariz.App. 382, 383 (1966); see also Ariz. R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Forino v. Arizona Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2003Conversely, if a statutory provision is interpreted as merely directory, “the failure to follow it has no invalidating consequence.” Forino, 191 Ariz. at 80 , 952 P.2d at 318 ; see also Department of Revenue. ¶ 10 Section 28-1321(D)(2)(b) states that an officer “shall ... serve an order of suspension” on a DUI arrestee who refuses *153 to submit to a designated test. 2003Conversely, if a statutory provision is interpreted as merely directory, “the failure to follow it has no invalidating consequence.” Forino, 191 Ariz. at 80 , 952 P.2d at 318 ; see also Department of Revenue. ¶ 10 Section 28-1321(D)(2)(b) states that an officer “shall ... serve an order of suspension” on a DUI arrestee who refuses *153 to submit to a designated test. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Carrillo v. Houser
green
2 sentences2019The purpose of § 28-1321 is to "remove from Arizona highways those drivers who may be a menace to themselves and others because of intoxication." Carrillo v. Houser , 224 Ariz. 463 , 465 ¶ 13, 232 P.3d 1245 , 1247 (2010) (quoting Sherrill v. Dep't of Transp. , 165 Ariz. 495 , 498, 799 P.2d 836 , 839 (1990) ). ¶10 The parties dispute whether § 28-1321 provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment by requiring DUI arrestees to voluntarily agree to breath testing. 2019The purpose of § 28-1321 is to "remove from Arizona highways those drivers who may be a menace to themselves and others because of intoxication." Carrillo v. Houser , 224 Ariz. 463 , 465 ¶ 13, 232 P.3d 1245 , 1247 (2010) (quoting Sherrill v. Dep't of Transp. , 165 Ariz. 495 , 498, 799 P.2d 836 , 839 (1990) ). ¶10 The parties dispute whether § 28-1321 provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment by requiring DUI arrestees to voluntarily agree to breath testing. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sherrill v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2019The purpose of § 28-1321 is to "remove from Arizona highways those drivers who may be a menace to themselves and others because of intoxication." Carrillo v. Houser , 224 Ariz. 463 , 465 ¶ 13, 232 P.3d 1245 , 1247 (2010) (quoting Sherrill v. Dep't of Transp. , 165 Ariz. 495 , 498, 799 P.2d 836 , 839 (1990) ). ¶10 The parties dispute whether § 28-1321 provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment by requiring DUI arrestees to voluntarily agree to breath testing. 2019The purpose of § 28-1321 is to "remove from Arizona highways those drivers who may be a menace to themselves and others because of intoxication." Carrillo v. Houser , 224 Ariz. 463 , 465 ¶ 13, 232 P.3d 1245 , 1247 (2010) (quoting Sherrill v. Dep't of Transp. , 165 Ariz. 495 , 498, 799 P.2d 836 , 839 (1990) ). ¶10 The parties dispute whether § 28-1321 provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment by requiring DUI arrestees to voluntarily agree to breath testing. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Clary
green
2 sentences2018"The 1990 amendment provides that if an arrested person refuses to submit to the designated test, 'the test shall not be given, except ... pursuant to a search warrant.' " 2 *1269 Clary , 196 Ariz. 610 , ¶ 12, 2 P.3d 1255 (quoting 1990 Ariz. Sess. 2018"The 1990 amendment provides that if an arrested person refuses to submit to the designated test, 'the test shall not be given, except ... pursuant to a search warrant.' " 2 *1269 Clary , 196 Ariz. 610 , ¶ 12, 2 P.3d 1255 (quoting 1990 Ariz. Sess. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Nix v. Williams
green
2 sentences2007Therefore, the required nexus between the violation and the seizure is absent, and the federal exclusionary rule would not require suppression of the blood-alcohol evidence. 2 See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 447 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). ¶ 35 In summary, I would hold, as did the superior court, that Stanley’s failure to expressly agree to submit to the designated test constituted a refusal and authorized the officer to seek a search warrant compelling Stanley to provide a blood sample. 2007Therefore, the required nexus between the violation and the seizure is absent, and the federal exclusionary rule would not require suppression of the blood-alcohol evidence. 2 See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 447 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). ¶ 35 In summary, I would hold, as did the superior court, that Stanley’s failure to expressly agree to submit to the designated test constituted a refusal and authorized the officer to seek a search warrant compelling Stanley to provide a blood sample. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.