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 4 courts 1966–2018 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. Odomgreen2 sentences1981(See People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410, 423 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 591 P.2d 514 ]; People v. Odom (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 100, 107 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 283 ].) When two open containers of beer were found under the seat and the officers had noticed that defendant had an alcoholic breath, it was not unreasonable to continue the detention long enough for a field sobriety test, which lasted “five minutes or less.” It was during the sobriety test that Officer Balsavage looked through an open window in the camper shell and saw the package of marijuana. 1981(See People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410, 423 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 591 P.2d 514 ]; People v. Odom (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 100, 107 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 283 ].) When two open containers of beer were found under the seat and the officers had noticed that defendant had an alcoholic breath, it was not unreasonable to continue the detention long enough for a field sobriety test, which lasted “five minutes or less.” It was during the sobriety test that Officer Balsavage looked through an open window in the camper shell and saw the package of marijuana. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Minjaresgreen2 sentences1981(See People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410, 423 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 591 P.2d 514 ]; People v. Odom (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 100, 107 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 283 ].) When two open containers of beer were found under the seat and the officers had noticed that defendant had an alcoholic breath, it was not unreasonable to continue the detention long enough for a field sobriety test, which lasted “five minutes or less.” It was during the sobriety test that Officer Balsavage looked through an open window in the camper shell and saw the package of marijuana. 1981(See People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410, 423 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 591 P.2d 514 ]; People v. Odom (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 100, 107 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 283 ].) When two open containers of beer were found under the seat and the officers had noticed that defendant had an alcoholic breath, it was not unreasonable to continue the detention long enough for a field sobriety test, which lasted “five minutes or less.” It was during the sobriety test that Officer Balsavage looked through an open window in the camper shell and saw the package of marijuana. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lindengreen2 sentences1966Moreover, the court may in its discretion even allow counsel to incorporate correct statements of law in his argument (People v. Linden (1959) 52 Cal.2d 1, 29 [ 338 P.2d 397 ]; People v. Dykes (1930) 107 Cal.App. 107, 118 [ 290 P. 102 ]), but it must sustain an objection to an incorrect statement of law (People v. Atwood, 214 Cal.App.2d 308, 309 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 463 ]). 1966Moreover, the court may in its discretion even allow counsel to incorporate correct statements of law in his argument (People v. Linden (1959) 52 Cal.2d 1, 29 [ 338 P.2d 397 ]; People v. Dykes (1930) 107 Cal.App. 107, 118 [ 290 P. 102 ]), but it must sustain an objection to an incorrect statement of law (People v. Atwood, 214 Cal.App.2d 308, 309 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 463 ]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Newberngreen2 sentences1966A refusal that might operate to suppress evidence of intoxication, which disappears rapidly with the passage of time (In re Newbern (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 862, 866 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 80 ]), should not be encouraged as a device to escape prosecution. *547 The disparate results found in other jurisdictions may be ascribed to the presence or absence of an underlying constitutional or statutory right to refuse to produce the physical evidence sought. 2 States that recognize a right to refuse to take such tests exclude evidence of a refusal. 3 States that recognize no right to refuse allow testimony and 1966A refusal that might operate to suppress evidence of intoxication, which disappears rapidly with the passage of time (In re Newbern (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 862, 866 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 80 ]), should not be encouraged as a device to escape prosecution. *547 The disparate results found in other jurisdictions may be ascribed to the presence or absence of an underlying constitutional or statutory right to refuse to produce the physical evidence sought. 2 States that recognize a right to refuse to take such tests exclude evidence of a refusal. 3 States that recognize no right to refuse allow testimony and | 1 | 1 |
People v. Atwoodgreen2 sentences1966Moreover, the court may in its discretion even allow counsel to incorporate correct statements of law in his argument (People v. Linden (1959) 52 Cal.2d 1, 29 [ 338 P.2d 397 ]; People v. Dykes (1930) 107 Cal.App. 107, 118 [ 290 P. 102 ]), but it must sustain an objection to an incorrect statement of law (People v. Atwood, 214 Cal.App.2d 308, 309 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 463 ]). 1966Moreover, the court may in its discretion even allow counsel to incorporate correct statements of law in his argument (People v. Linden (1959) 52 Cal.2d 1, 29 [ 338 P.2d 397 ]; People v. Dykes (1930) 107 Cal.App. 107, 118 [ 290 P. 102 ]), but it must sustain an objection to an incorrect statement of law (People v. Atwood, 214 Cal.App.2d 308, 309 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 463 ]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dykesgreen2 sentences1966Moreover, the court may in its discretion even allow counsel to incorporate correct statements of law in his argument (People v. Linden (1959) 52 Cal.2d 1, 29 [ 338 P.2d 397 ]; People v. Dykes (1930) 107 Cal.App. 107, 118 [ 290 P. 102 ]), but it must sustain an objection to an incorrect statement of law (People v. Atwood, 214 Cal.App.2d 308, 309 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 463 ]). 1966Moreover, the court may in its discretion even allow counsel to incorporate correct statements of law in his argument (People v. Linden (1959) 52 Cal.2d 1, 29 [ 338 P.2d 397 ]; People v. Dykes (1930) 107 Cal.App. 107, 118 [ 290 P. 102 ]), but it must sustain an objection to an incorrect statement of law (People v. Atwood, 214 Cal.App.2d 308, 309 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 463 ]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morphew v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2018Once at the station, "the officer attempted three times" to read the chemical testing admonition. ( Id. at p. 740, 188 Cal.Rptr. 126 .) The first two times, the officer read some of the admonition and then Morphew "interrupted the officer by approaching him and stating that he had passed the sobriety test." During the third attempt, Morphew "approached the officer and attempted to strike him with his fist." ( Ibid. ) The officer never reached the portion of the admonition about license suspension. 2018Once at the station, "the officer attempted three times" to read the chemical testing admonition. ( Id. at p. 740, 188 Cal.Rptr. 126 .) The first two times, the officer read some of the admonition and then Morphew "interrupted the officer by approaching him and stating that he had passed the sobriety test." During the third attempt, Morphew "approached the officer and attempted to strike him with his fist." ( Ibid. ) The officer never reached the portion of the admonition about license suspension. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. McGinnis
green
1 sentence1984In People v. McGinnis (1953) 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 945 [ 267 P.2d 458 ], the court was also concerned with the refusal of a suspected drunken driver to submit to a sobriety test. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Anderson v. Cozens
green
2 sentences1982In Anderson v. Cozens, supra, 60 Cal.App.3d 130 , this court held that section 13353 authorizes the suspension of an individual driver’s license for failure to submit to the sobriety test without any finding that the individual is, in fact, intoxicated. 1982In Anderson v. Cozens, supra, 60 Cal. App.3d 130 , this court held that section 13353 authorizes the suspension of an individual driver's license for failure to submit to the sobriety test without any finding that the individual is, in fact, intoxicated. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Freeman v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences1977(Freeman v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 70 Cal.2d 235 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 259 , 449 P.2d 195 ].) 3. 1977(Freeman v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 70 Cal.2d 235 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 259 , 449 P.2d 195 ].) 3. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.