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.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1966–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Duroncelaygreen2 sentences1966(People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770-771 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]), as establishing such ‘emergency’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ as would justify the officer’s conduct in the absence of a warrant, consent or arrest.” Neither does Malloy v. Hogan, supra, 378 U.S. 1 , detract from the opinions of Duroncelay, supra, and Haeussler, supra, that the admission of evidence of the results of a blood test in the absence of defendant’s consent did not violate his privilege against self-incrimination because the privilege relates only to testimonial compulsion. 1966(People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770-771 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]), as establishing such ‘emergency’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ as would justify the officer’s conduct in the absence of a warrant, consent or arrest.” Neither does Malloy v. Hogan, supra, 378 U.S. 1 , detract from the opinions of Duroncelay, supra, and Haeussler, supra, that the admission of evidence of the results of a blood test in the absence of defendant’s consent did not violate his privilege against self-incrimination because the privilege relates only to testimonial compulsion. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Haeusslergreen2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 2 |
City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1968The privilege here asserted by defendant is predicated upon considerations precluding “the humiliation of the patient that might follow disclosure of his ailments.” (City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 227, 232 [ 231 P.2d 26 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1418 ].) Yet had defendant, when removed from the scene by ambulance to Community Hospital for medical care and treatment for his own injuries, been so unfortunate as to have been arrested for drunk driving by an alert law enforcement officer who requested the doctor treating, or a nurse attending him in the hospital to draw a blood sa 1968The privilege here asserted by defendant is predicated upon considerations precluding “the humiliation of the patient that might follow disclosure of his ailments.” (City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 227, 232 [ 231 P.2d 26 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1418 ].) Yet had defendant, when removed from the scene by ambulance to Community Hospital for medical care and treatment for his own injuries, been so unfortunate as to have been arrested for drunk driving by an alert law enforcement officer who requested the doctor treating, or a nurse attending him in the hospital to draw a blood sa | 1 | 1 |
People v. Packgreen2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 1 |
Vasquez v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lopezgreen2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Conternogreen2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Trujillogreen2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bassgreen2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kempgreen2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Knoxgreen2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hubergreen2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tahtinengreen2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Missouri v. McNeely
green
2 sentences2014Relying on the recent decision in Missouri v. McNeely (2013) ___ U.S. ___ [ 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 ] (McNeely), defendant argues the court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress the results of a blood test because his blood was drawn without a warrant. 2014Relying on the recent decision in Missouri v. McNeely (2013) ___ U.S. ___ [ 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 ] (McNeely), defendant argues the court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress the results of a blood test because his blood was drawn without a warrant. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Fisk v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
1 sentence1992(Snelgrove, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at p. 1375 ; Fisk, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 77 .) Snelgrove specifically noted that the statement did not contain hearsay except for the driver’s own admissions. ( 194 Cal.App.3d at p. 1375 .) In the present case, by contrast, the officer’s statement reports the results of a blood test not performed by the officer and so not within the officer’s personal knowledge. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Snelgrove v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences1992(Snelgrove, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at p. 1375 ; Fisk, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 77 .) Snelgrove specifically noted that the statement did not contain hearsay except for the driver’s own admissions. ( 194 Cal.App.3d at p. 1375 .) In the present case, by contrast, the officer’s statement reports the results of a blood test not performed by the officer and so not within the officer’s personal knowledge. 1992(Snelgrove, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at p. 1375 ; Fisk, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 77 .) Snelgrove specifically noted that the statement did not contain hearsay except for the driver’s own admissions. ( 194 Cal.App.3d at p. 1375 .) In the present case, by contrast, the officer’s statement reports the results of a blood test not performed by the officer and so not within the officer’s personal knowledge. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Jackson v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1970Morgan has mistakenly placed reliance on Jackson v. Jackson, 67 Cal.2d 245 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 649 , 430 P.2d 289 ], which concerned a period of marital cohabitation of about four days’ duration where the results of a blood test were held to be permissible evidence. 1970Morgan has mistakenly placed reliance on Jackson v. Jackson, 67 Cal.2d 245 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 649 , 430 P.2d 289 ], which concerned a period of marital cohabitation of about four days’ duration where the results of a blood test were held to be permissible evidence. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Rochin v. California
green
2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Breithaupt v. Abram
green
2 sentences1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) 1966(Blood tests: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 ]; People v. Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 257-260 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 478 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Knox, 178 Cal.App.2d 502, 513 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 70 ]; People v. Pack, 199 Cal.App.2d 857, 863 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Huber, 232 Cal.App.2d 663, 670-672 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; saliva test: People v. Kemp, supra, p. 478 ; breath analysis test: People v. Conterno, 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 817, 826-827 [ 339 P.2d 968 ].) | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Malloy v. Hogan
green
1 sentence1966(People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 770-771 [ 312 P.2d 690 ]), as establishing such ‘emergency’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ as would justify the officer’s conduct in the absence of a warrant, consent or arrest.” Neither does Malloy v. Hogan, supra, 378 U.S. 1 , detract from the opinions of Duroncelay, supra, and Haeussler, supra, that the admission of evidence of the results of a blood test in the absence of defendant’s consent did not violate his privilege against self-incrimination because the privilege relates only to testimonial compulsion. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.