46 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sheltongreen2 sentences2025See State v. Cantrell, 139 Idaho 409, 412 , 80 P.3d 345, 348 (Ct. App. 2003) (the delay in release from jail was not attributable to the State because the officers were not interfering or preventing defendant’s release); State v. Shelton, 129 Idaho 877, 880 , 934 P.2d 943, 946 (Ct. App. 1997) (because defendant did not affirmatively exercise his right to an independent BAC test, the State did not violate his rights). 2025See State v. Cantrell, 139 Idaho 409, 412 , 80 P.3d 345, 348 (Ct. App. 2003) (the delay in release from jail was not attributable to the State because the officers were not interfering or preventing defendant’s release); State v. Shelton, 129 Idaho 877, 880 , 934 P.2d 943, 946 (Ct. App. 1997) (because defendant did not affirmatively exercise his right to an independent BAC test, the State did not violate his rights). | 4 | 5 |
Matter of McNeelygreen2 sentences2008Under Idaho’s implied consent statute, I.C. § 18-8002(1), anyone driving on Idaho roads is deemed to have impliedly consented to evidentiary testing for the presence of alcohol or drugs when a police officer has reasonable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence. 2 In other words, “[b]y virtue of this statute, ‘anyone who accepts the privilege of operating a motor vehicle upon Idaho’s highways has consented in advance to submit to a BAC test.’ ” Rodriguez, 128 Idaho at 523 , 915 P.2d at 1381 (quoting Matter of McNeely, 119 Idaho 182, 187 , 804 P.2d 911, 916 (Ct.App. 1990)). 2008Under Idaho’s implied consent statute, I.C. § 18-8002(1), anyone driving on Idaho roads is deemed to have impliedly consented to evidentiary testing for the presence of alcohol or drugs when a police officer has reasonable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence. 2 In other words, “[b]y virtue of this statute, ‘anyone who accepts the privilege of operating a motor vehicle upon Idaho’s highways has consented in advance to submit to a BAC test.’ ” Rodriguez, 128 Idaho at 523 , 915 P.2d at 1381 (quoting Matter of McNeely, 119 Idaho 182, 187 , 804 P.2d 911, 916 (Ct.App. 1990)). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Carrgreen2 sentences2020Applying the first factor listed above, the Court of Appeals explained that the private interest at stake was the arrested individual’s interest in “procuring evidence which would challenge the results of the State’s BAC test.” Id. at 184 , 911 P.2d at 777 . 2020Applying the first factor listed above, the Court of Appeals explained that the private interest at stake was the arrested individual’s interest in “procuring evidence which would challenge the results of the State’s BAC test.” Id. at 184 , 911 P.2d at 777 . | 3 | 8 |
State v. Maddengreen2 sentences1997Medley, supra. Relying on State v. Carr, 128 Idaho 181 , 911 P.2d 774 (Ct.App.1995), and State v. Madden, 127 Idaho 894 , 908 P.2d 587 (Ct.App.1995), Shelton asserts that his right to due process was violated because the standard Advisory Form was defective in two ways: first, the form faded to advise the detainee that immediately following the BAC test, access to a telephone is available for the purposes of arranging bail, contacting an attorney or arranging additional BAC testing; and second, the form failed to advise the detainee that if he requested additional BAC testing, an officer would 1997Medley, supra. Relying on State v. Carr, 128 Idaho 181 , 911 P.2d 774 (Ct.App.1995), and State v. Madden, 127 Idaho 894 , 908 P.2d 587 (Ct.App.1995), Shelton asserts that his right to due process was violated because the standard Advisory Form was defective in two ways: first, the form faded to advise the detainee that immediately following the BAC test, access to a telephone is available for the purposes of arranging bail, contacting an attorney or arranging additional BAC testing; and second, the form failed to advise the detainee that if he requested additional BAC testing, an officer would | 2 | 4 |
State v. Maddengreen2 sentences1997Medley, supra. Relying on State v. Carr, 128 Idaho 181 , 911 P.2d 774 (Ct.App.1995), and State v. Madden, 127 Idaho 894 , 908 P.2d 587 (Ct.App.1995), Shelton asserts that his right to due process was violated because the standard Advisory Form was defective in two ways: first, the form faded to advise the detainee that immediately following the BAC test, access to a telephone is available for the purposes of arranging bail, contacting an attorney or arranging additional BAC testing; and second, the form failed to advise the detainee that if he requested additional BAC testing, an officer would 1997Medley, supra. Relying on State v. Carr, 128 Idaho 181 , 911 P.2d 774 (Ct.App.1995), and State v. Madden, 127 Idaho 894 , 908 P.2d 587 (Ct.App.1995), Shelton asserts that his right to due process was violated because the standard Advisory Form was defective in two ways: first, the form faded to advise the detainee that immediately following the BAC test, access to a telephone is available for the purposes of arranging bail, contacting an attorney or arranging additional BAC testing; and second, the form failed to advise the detainee that if he requested additional BAC testing, an officer would | 2 | 4 |
State v. Cantrellgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Cantrell, 139 Idaho 409, 412 , 80 P.3d 345, 348 (Ct. App. 2003) (the delay in release from jail was not attributable to the State because the officers were not interfering or preventing defendant’s release); State v. Shelton, 129 Idaho 877, 880 , 934 P.2d 943, 946 (Ct. App. 1997) (because defendant did not affirmatively exercise his right to an independent BAC test, the State did not violate his rights). 2025See State v. Cantrell, 139 Idaho 409, 412 , 80 P.3d 345, 348 (Ct. App. 2003) (the delay in release from jail was not attributable to the State because the officers were not interfering or preventing defendant’s release); State v. Shelton, 129 Idaho 877, 880 , 934 P.2d 943, 946 (Ct. App. 1997) (because defendant did not affirmatively exercise his right to an independent BAC test, the State did not violate his rights). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Ankneygreen2 sentences1992See, e.g., State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368 , 775 P.2d 1210 (1989) (holding that there is no statutory right to refuse to submit to an evidentiary test for BAC); I.C. § 18-8002(2) (providing that when an officer has statutory grounds for requesting a BAC test of a driver, that “person *370 shall not have the right to consult with an attorney before submitting to [the test.]”) See also State v. Ankney, 109 Idaho 1 , 704 P.2d 333 (1985). 1992See, e.g., State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368 , 775 P.2d 1210 (1989) (holding that there is no statutory right to refuse to submit to an evidentiary test for BAC); I.C. § 18-8002(2) (providing that when an officer has statutory grounds for requesting a BAC test of a driver, that “person *370 shall not have the right to consult with an attorney before submitting to [the test.]”) See also State v. Ankney, 109 Idaho 1 , 704 P.2d 333 (1985). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2020While it is true that a DUI arrestee has no right to access a phone or to call a lawyer before a BAC test is administered, State v. Green, 149 Idaho 706, 710 , 239 P.3d 811, 815 (Ct. App. 2010), such a request can still help to inform State actors as to the purpose of a subsequent request. 2020While it is true that a DUI arrestee has no right to access a phone or to call a lawyer before a BAC test is administered, State v. Green, 149 Idaho 706, 710 , 239 P.3d 811, 815 (Ct. App. 2010), such a request can still help to inform State actors as to the purpose of a subsequent request. | 2 | 2 |
Masterson v. Idaho Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2024See id. at 129 , 244 P.3d at 628 . 2024See id. at 129 , 244 P.3d at 628 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rountreegreen2 sentences2010Hedges, 143 Idaho at 887-88 , 154 P. 3d at 1077-78 ; see also Rountree, 129 Idaho at 150 , 922 P.2d at 1076 . 3 At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Blackmon testified that he asked the arresting officer for a second BAC test and a telephone call soon after submitting to the BAC test. 2010Hedges, 143 Idaho at 887-88 , 154 P. 3d at 1077-78 ; see also Rountree, 129 Idaho at 150 , 922 P.2d at 1076 . 3 At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Blackmon testified that he asked the arresting officer for a second BAC test and a telephone call soon after submitting to the BAC test. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hedgesgreen2 sentences2025Hedges, 143 Idaho at 888 , 154 P.3d at 1078 (once informed of this right, a defendant must make a clear and unambiguous statement of his or her desire to obtain an independent BAC test, such that a reasonable police officer under the circumstances would understand the statement to be an affirmative assertion thereof). 2025Hedges, 143 Idaho at 888 , 154 P.3d at 1078 (once informed of this right, a defendant must make a clear and unambiguous statement of his or her desire to obtain an independent BAC test, such that a reasonable police officer under the circumstances would understand the statement to be an affirmative assertion thereof). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Bellgreen2 sentences2013With respect to the ISP’s responsibility to adopt standards that will ensure test accuracy, Besaw refers to this Court’s comments in State v. Bell, 115 Idaho 36 , 764 P.2d 113 (Ct.App.1988), discussing a prior version of I.C. § 18-8004 in which responsibility for authorizing alcohol content testing procedures was assigned to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, a responsibility that has subsequently transferred to the ISP. 2013With respect to the ISP’s responsibility to adopt standards that will ensure test accuracy, Besaw refers to this Court’s comments in State v. Bell, 115 Idaho 36 , 764 P.2d 113 (Ct.App.1988), discussing a prior version of I.C. § 18-8004 in which responsibility for authorizing alcohol content testing procedures was assigned to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, a responsibility that has subsequently transferred to the ISP. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Swansongreen2 sentences2010Snyder v. State, 930 P.2d 1274, 1277 (Alaska 1996); McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Arizona, 133 Ariz. 7, 648 P.2d 122 , 125 n. 2 (1982); Smith v. Cada, 114 Ariz. 510 , 562 P.2d 390, 392-93 (Ariz.Ct.App.1977); State v. Swanson, 222 Mont. 357 , 722 P.2d 1155, 1157 (1986); State v. Lewis, 266 S.C. 45 , 221 S.E.2d 524, 526 (1976). 2010Snyder v. State, 930 P.2d 1274, 1277 (Alaska 1996); McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Arizona, 133 Ariz. 7, 648 P.2d 122 , 125 n. 2 (1982); Smith v. Cada, 114 Ariz. 510 , 562 P.2d 390, 392-93 (Ariz.Ct.App.1977); State v. Swanson, 222 Mont. 357 , 722 P.2d 1155, 1157 (1986); State v. Lewis, 266 S.C. 45 , 221 S.E.2d 524, 526 (1976). | 1 | 2 |
Matter of Griffithsgreen2 sentences2010Griffiths, 113 Idaho at 370 , 744 P.2d at 98 . 5 comply with the statutory directive concerning the advisory information to be given to motorists when a BAC test is requested. 2010Griffiths, 113 Idaho at 370 , 744 P.2d at 98 . 5 comply with the statutory directive concerning the advisory information to be given to motorists when a BAC test is requested. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2010In other words, “[b]y virtue of this statute, anyone who accepts the privilege of operating a motor vehicle upon Idaho’s highways has consented in advance to submit to a BAC test.” DeWitt, 145 Idaho at 712 , 184 P.3d at 218 (quoting State v. Rodriguez, 128 Idaho 521, 523 , 915 P.2d 1379, 1381 (Ct.App.1996) (internal quotations omitted)). 2010In other words, “[b]y virtue of this statute, anyone who accepts the privilege of operating a motor vehicle upon Idaho’s highways has consented in advance to submit to a BAC test.” DeWitt, 145 Idaho at 712 , 184 P.3d at 218 (quoting State v. Rodriguez, 128 Idaho 521, 523 , 915 P.2d 1379, 1381 (Ct.App.1996) (internal quotations omitted)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wooleryred2 sentences1992See, e.g., State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368 , 775 P.2d 1210 (1989) (holding that there is no statutory right to refuse to submit to an evidentiary test for BAC); I.C. § 18-8002(2) (providing that when an officer has statutory grounds for requesting a BAC test of a driver, that “person *370 shall not have the right to consult with an attorney before submitting to [the test.]”) See also State v. Ankney, 109 Idaho 1 , 704 P.2d 333 (1985). 1992See, e.g., State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368 , 775 P.2d 1210 (1989) (holding that there is no statutory right to refuse to submit to an evidentiary test for BAC); I.C. § 18-8002(2) (providing that when an officer has statutory grounds for requesting a BAC test of a driver, that “person *370 shall not have the right to consult with an attorney before submitting to [the test.]”) See also State v. Ankney, 109 Idaho 1 , 704 P.2d 333 (1985). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Stegallgreen2 sentences2025State v. Hedges, 143 Idaho, 844, 888 , 154 P.3d 1074, 1078 (Ct. App. 2007). 2 As the district court noted, the Court in Stegall stated that a DUI suspect’s request to call an attorney prior to a BAC test “can still help to inform State actors as to the purpose of a subsequent request.” State v. Stegall, 167 Idaho 918, 924 , 477 P.3d 972, 978 (2020). 2025State v. Hedges, 143 Idaho, 844, 888 , 154 P.3d 1074, 1078 (Ct. App. 2007). 2 As the district court noted, the Court in Stegall stated that a DUI suspect’s request to call an attorney prior to a BAC test “can still help to inform State actors as to the purpose of a subsequent request.” State v. Stegall, 167 Idaho 918, 924 , 477 P.3d 972, 978 (2020). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2024See State v. Henderson, 114 Idaho 293, 295 , 756 P.2d 1057, 1059 (1988); Ferreira, 133 Idaho at 490 , 988 P.2d at 706 . 2024See State v. Henderson, 114 Idaho 293, 295 , 756 P.2d 1057, 1059 (1988); Ferreira, 133 Idaho at 490 , 988 P.2d at 706 . | 1 | 1 |
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Goregreen1 sentence2023Wood’s above factual contentions certainly “raise a suspicious judicial eyebrow[.]” BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 583 (1996) (quoting TXO Prod. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carsongreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Carson, 133 Idaho 451 , 452–53, 988 P.2d 225 , 226–27 (Ct. App. 1999) (quoting the manual approved by the Department of Law Enforcement [predecessor agency to the ISP] as requiring the officer administering a BAC test to “[o]bserve the subject for 15 minutes” and that “[d]uring this time, the subject may not smoke, consume alcohol, belch, vomit, use chewing tobacco, or have any other substance in the mouth.” (emphasis added)); Wilkinson v. State, Dept. of Transp., 151 Idaho 784 , 264 P.3d 680 (Ct. App. 2011) (quoting the operator’s training manual for the Intoxilyzer 5000 a 2023See, e.g., State v. Carson, 133 Idaho 451 , 452–53, 988 P.2d 225 , 226–27 (Ct. App. 1999) (quoting the manual approved by the Department of Law Enforcement [predecessor agency to the ISP] as requiring the officer administering a BAC test to “[o]bserve the subject for 15 minutes” and that “[d]uring this time, the subject may not smoke, consume alcohol, belch, vomit, use chewing tobacco, or have any other substance in the mouth.” (emphasis added)); Wilkinson v. State, Dept. of Transp., 151 Idaho 784 , 264 P.3d 680 (Ct. App. 2011) (quoting the operator’s training manual for the Intoxilyzer 5000 a | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Vlietgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Daygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Trujillogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Felicity Kathleen Haynesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| South Dakota v. Nevillegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wanner v. State, Department of Transportationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Virgil v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Cadagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Snyder v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lewisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Diazred | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Knollgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Barkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Giles v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Schmerber v. Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bilbrey v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Missouri v. McNeely
green
2 sentences2020The Court stated, “[s]uch laws impose significant consequences when a motorist withdraws consent; typically the motorist’s driver’s license is immediately suspended or revoked, and most States allow the motorist’s refusal to take a BAC test to be used as evidence against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution.” Id. 2020The Court stated, “[s]uch laws impose significant consequences when a motorist withdraws consent; typically the motorist’s driver’s license is immediately suspended or revoked, and most States allow the motorist’s refusal to take a BAC test to be used as evidence against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution.” Id. | 5 | 2014–2020 |
State of Idaho, Department of Transportation v. Marvin Gibbar
green
2 sentences2012In Gibbar, we interpreted Idaho Code § 18 -8002A(7)(c) and (d) “as permitting [administrative license suspension] petitioners to challenge the results of their BAC test by proving that the testing equipment was inaccurate or was not functioning properly because the State has adopted procedures that do not ensure accuracy and proper functioning.” Gibbar, 143 Idaho at 947 , 155 P.3d at 1186 . 2012In Gibbar, we interpreted Idaho Code § 18 -8002A(7)(e) and (d) “as permitting [administrative license suspension] petitioners to challenge the results of their BAC test by proving that the testing equipment was inaccurate or was not functioning properly because the State has adopted procedures that do not ensure accuracy and proper functioning.” Gibbar, 143 Idaho at 947 , 155 P.3d at 1186 . | 4 | 2011–2012 |
In Re Suspension of Driver's License
green
2 sentences2012In Gibbar, we interpreted Idaho Code § 18 -8002A(7)(c) and (d) “as permitting [administrative license suspension] petitioners to challenge the results of their BAC test by proving that the testing equipment was inaccurate or was not functioning properly because the State has adopted procedures that do not ensure accuracy and proper functioning.” Gibbar, 143 Idaho at 947 , 155 P.3d at 1186 . 2012In Gibbar, we interpreted Idaho Code § 18 -8002A(7)(e) and (d) “as permitting [administrative license suspension] petitioners to challenge the results of their BAC test by proving that the testing equipment was inaccurate or was not functioning properly because the State has adopted procedures that do not ensure accuracy and proper functioning.” Gibbar, 143 Idaho at 947 , 155 P.3d at 1186 . | 4 | 2011–2012 |
State v. Robinett
green
2 sentences2025Clapp also argues that the district court erred by allowing his BAC test results to be considered as evidence on the impairment theory of DUI without any evidence extrapolating those results back to the time of driving, contrary to State v. Robinett, 141 Idaho 110 , 106 P.3d 436 (2005).1 The State responds that a review of the record and relevant law 1 Clapp also cites our unpublished opinion in State v. Hollon, Docket No. 46241 (Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2019), asserting that, although Hollon does “not constitute precedent” and claiming he does not rely on it “as authority requiring a particular deci 2025Clapp also argues that the district court erred by allowing his BAC test results to be considered as evidence on the impairment theory of DUI without any evidence extrapolating those results back to the time of driving, contrary to State v. Robinett, 141 Idaho 110 , 106 P.3d 436 (2005).1 The State responds that a review of the record and relevant law 1 Clapp also cites our unpublished opinion in State v. Hollon, Docket No. 46241 (Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2019), asserting that, although Hollon does “not constitute precedent” and claiming he does not rely on it “as authority requiring a particular deci | 3 | 2016–2025 |
State v. Sutliff
green
2 sentences2020Ctr., 151 Idaho 889 , 265 P.3d 502 (2011); Sutliff, 97 Idaho at 525 , 547 P.2d at 1130 . 9 (“[R]etrograde analysis is generally considered to be a reliable scientific discipline.”); State v. Vliet, 19 P.3d 42, 60 (Haw. 2001) (“We take judicial notice that Widmark’s formula is widely viewed as reliable.”); State v. Day, 176 P.3d 1091, 1099 (N.M. 2008) (“[T]he State can use scientific retrograde extrapolation evidence to prove that a BAC test taken after three hours and below 0.08 shows that the defendant had an actual BAC of 0.08 or higher within three hours of driving.”); State v. Davis, 542 S 2020Ctr., 151 Idaho 889 , 265 P.3d 502 (2011); Sutliff, 97 Idaho at 525 , 547 P.2d at 1130 . 9 (“[R]etrograde analysis is generally considered to be a reliable scientific discipline.”); State v. Vliet, 19 P.3d 42, 60 (Haw. 2001) (“We take judicial notice that Widmark’s formula is widely viewed as reliable.”); State v. Day, 176 P.3d 1091, 1099 (N.M. 2008) (“[T]he State can use scientific retrograde extrapolation evidence to prove that a BAC test taken after three hours and below 0.08 shows that the defendant had an actual BAC of 0.08 or higher within three hours of driving.”); State v. Davis, 542 S | 2 | 2005–2020 |
State v. Hartwig
green
2 sentences2012Similarly, in State v. Hartwig, 112 Idaho 370 , 732 P.2d 339 (Ct. App. 1987), we held that although breath test results were properly admitted into evidence at a criminal trial because the State showed that the designated state agency had approved the machine for use and that the machine was operated in compliance with approved standards, the reliability and performance of the machine is still subject to challenge. 2012Similarly, in State v. Hartwig, 112 Idaho 370 , 732 P.2d 339 (Ct. App. 1987), we held that although breath test results were properly admitted into evidence at a criminal trial because the State showed that the designated state agency had approved the machine for use and that the machine was operated in compliance with approved standards, the reliability and performance of the machine is still subject to challenge. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Ariz.
green
2 sentences2010Snyder v. State, 930 P.2d 1274, 1277 (Alaska 1996); McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Arizona, 133 Ariz. 7, 648 P.2d 122 , 125 n. 2 (1982); Smith v. Cada, 114 Ariz. 510 , 562 P.2d 390, 392-93 (Ariz.Ct.App.1977); State v. Swanson, 222 Mont. 357 , 722 P.2d 1155, 1157 (1986); State v. Lewis, 266 S.C. 45 , 221 S.E.2d 524, 526 (1976). 2010Snyder v. State, 930 P.2d 1274, 1277 (Alaska 1996); McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Arizona, 133 Ariz. 7, 648 P.2d 122 , 125 n. 2 (1982); Smith v. Cada, 114 Ariz. 510 , 562 P.2d 390, 392-93 (Ariz.Ct.App.1977); State v. Swanson, 222 Mont. 357 , 722 P.2d 1155, 1157 (1986); State v. Lewis, 266 S.C. 45 , 221 S.E.2d 524, 526 (1976). | 2 | 1995–2010 |
State v. Justin Keith Austin
green
1 sentence2025However, on appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court clarified that, while BAC test results are sufficient for the State to show a driver was above the legal limit, the test result “does not act to remove the violation’s nexus to driving, nor does it mandate an unassailable conclusion not open to defense.” Id. at 381-82, 413 P.3d at 781-82 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Ferreira
green
2 sentences2024See State v. Henderson, 114 Idaho 293, 295 , 756 P.2d 1057, 1059 (1988); Ferreira, 133 Idaho at 490 , 988 P.2d at 706 . 2024See State v. Henderson, 114 Idaho 293, 295 , 756 P.2d 1057, 1059 (1988); Ferreira, 133 Idaho at 490 , 988 P.2d at 706 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Wilkinson v. State, Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Carson, 133 Idaho 451 , 452–53, 988 P.2d 225 , 226–27 (Ct. App. 1999) (quoting the manual approved by the Department of Law Enforcement [predecessor agency to the ISP] as requiring the officer administering a BAC test to “[o]bserve the subject for 15 minutes” and that “[d]uring this time, the subject may not smoke, consume alcohol, belch, vomit, use chewing tobacco, or have any other substance in the mouth.” (emphasis added)); Wilkinson v. State, Dept. of Transp., 151 Idaho 784 , 264 P.3d 680 (Ct. App. 2011) (quoting the operator’s training manual for the Intoxilyzer 5000 a 2023See, e.g., State v. Carson, 133 Idaho 451 , 452–53, 988 P.2d 225 , 226–27 (Ct. App. 1999) (quoting the manual approved by the Department of Law Enforcement [predecessor agency to the ISP] as requiring the officer administering a BAC test to “[o]bserve the subject for 15 minutes” and that “[d]uring this time, the subject may not smoke, consume alcohol, belch, vomit, use chewing tobacco, or have any other substance in the mouth.” (emphasis added)); Wilkinson v. State, Dept. of Transp., 151 Idaho 784 , 264 P.3d 680 (Ct. App. 2011) (quoting the operator’s training manual for the Intoxilyzer 5000 a | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Gusman green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Peck v. State, Department of Transportation green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Schmoll green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Harmon green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. DeWitt green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Brady v. Maryland green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Choate green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Scarborough v. State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| City of Lakewood v. Waselenchuk green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Anderson v. City of Pocatello green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Matter of Heth green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| McCharles v. State, Dept. of Motor Vehicles green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.