NRS
484C.160 Implied consent to evidentiary test; exemption from blood test;
choice of test; when blood test may be requested; when other tests may be used;
reasonable force authorized to obtain test in certain circumstances; notification
of parent, guardian or custodian of minor requested to submit to test.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsections 4 and 5, any person who drives or is in actual physical control of
a vehicle on a highway or on premises to which the public has access shall be
deemed to have given his or her consent to an evidentiary test of his or her
blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance to determine the concentration
of alcohol in his or her blood or breath or to determine whether a controlled
substance, chemical, poison, organic solvent or another prohibited substance is
present, if such a test is administered at the request of a police officer
having reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be tested was:
(a) Driving or in actual physical control of a
vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled
substance or with a prohibited substance in his or her blood or urine; or
(b) Engaging in any other conduct prohibited by NRS 484C.110, 484C.120, 484C.130 or 484C.430.
2. A police officer who requests that a
person submit to a test pursuant to subsection 1 shall inform the person that
his or her license, permit or privilege to drive will be revoked if he or she
fails to submit to the test.
3. If the person to be tested pursuant to
subsection 1 is dead or unconscious, the officer shall direct that samples of
blood from the person to be tested.
4. Any person who is afflicted with
hemophilia or with a heart condition requiring the use of an anticoagulant as
determined by a physician or an advanced practice registered nurse is exempt
from any blood test which may be required pursuant to this section but must,
when appropriate pursuant to the provisions of this section, be required to
submit to a breath or urine test.
5. If the concentration of alcohol in the
blood or breath of the person to be tested is in issue:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section,
the person may refuse to submit to a blood test if means are reasonably
available to perform a breath test.
(b) The person may request a blood test, but if
means are reasonably available to perform a breath test when the blood test is
requested, and the person is subsequently convicted, the person must pay for
the cost of the blood test, including the fees and expenses of witnesses whose
testimony in court or an administrative hearing is necessary because of the use
of the blood test. The expenses of such a witness may be assessed at an hourly
rate of not less than:
(1) Fifty dollars for travel to and from
the place of the proceeding; and
(2) One hundred dollars for giving or
waiting to give testimony.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in NRS 484C.200, not more than three samples
of the person’s blood or breath may be taken during the 5-hour period
immediately following the time of the initial arrest.
6. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 7, if the presence of a controlled substance, chemical, poison,
organic solvent or another prohibited substance in the blood or urine of the
person is in issue, the officer may request that the person submit to a blood
or urine test, or both.
7. If the presence of marijuana in the
blood of the person is in issue, the officer may request that the person submit
to a blood test.
8. Except as otherwise provided in
subsections 4 and 6, a police officer shall not request that a person submit to
a urine test.
9. If a person to be tested fails to
submit to a required test as requested by a police officer pursuant to this
section and the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be
tested was:
(a) Driving or in actual physical control of a
vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled
substance or with a prohibited substance in his or her blood or urine; or
(b) Engaging in any other conduct prohibited by NRS 484C.110, 484C.120, 484C.130 or 484C.430,
Ê the officer
may apply for a warrant or court order directing that reasonable force be used
to the extent necessary to obtain samples of blood from the person to be
tested.
10. If a person who is less than 18 years
of age is requested to submit to an evidentiary test pursuant to this section,
the officer shall, before testing the person, make a reasonable attempt to
notify the parent, guardian or custodian of the person, if known.
(Added to NRS by 1969,
593; A 1973,
1502; 1975,
73; 1979,
1164; 1981,
1361; 1983,
18, 1074;
1985,
785; 1987,
1237; 1989,
2048; 1993,
117, 2073;
1995,
1883; 1997,
325, 3047;
1999,
633, 2453,
3434;
2001,
172; 2005,
149; 2007,
2802; 2015,
2535; 2017,
306; 2019,
501)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.383)
Notes of Decisions
State v. Don Jacob Havatone, 389 P.3d 1251 (Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 2× “§ 28-1321(C); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.160(1), (3). Alternatively, the court ruled that even if a warrant was required, the police acted in reliance on statutes and cases in effect when the blood was seized, thus satisfying the good-faith exception to the 3 STATE V.”
State v. Villarreal, David, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
“NRS 484C.160(1) provides that “any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway or on premises to which the public has access shall be deemed to have given his or her consent to an evidentiary test of his or her blood, urine, breath or other…”
United States v. Sugiyama, 113 F. Supp. 3d 784 (D. Maryland 2015).
“Nevada’s implied-consent statute at the time of the defendant’s arrest allowed a police officer to use reasonable force to obtain a blood sample upon a driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test.”
Byars v. State, 2014 NV 85 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 24× “We further conclude that despite NRS 484C.160, the state's implied consent statute, the blood draw in this case was unlawful because appellant did not submit to the blood draw, and NRS 484C.”
State v. Quinteros (Regis) (Nev. 2016).
· cites it 6× “3d 939 , 947 (2014) (concluding that a blood draw should not be excluded where an officer relied in good faith on the constitutional validity of NRS 484C.160). Because NRS 484.160(7) was ruled unconstitutional in violation of the Fourth Amendment in Byars, the exclusionary rule…”
Cherry v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 6× “The version of NRS 484C.160 in effect at the time did not permit a person to refuse to take a blood alcohol test when directed to do so by an officer who had reason to believe that the person was driving under the influence.”
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. v. Williams (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 5× “Except as otherwise provided in subsections 4 and 5, any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway or on premises to which the public has access shall be deemed to have given his or her consent to an evidentiary test of his SUPREME COURT OF…”
State v. Newcomer (William) (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 5× “The district court did not err by finding that a warrant was required for the blood draw The State argues that a warrant was not required for the drawing of a blood sample from Newcomer because NRS 484C.160 established Newcomer's implied consent for the search.”
Repinec (James) v. State (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 2× “However, we concluded that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary remedy applies and exclusion is not mandated when an officer "relied in good faith on the constitutional validity of NRS 484C.160, and such reliance appears reasonable.”
Henderson (Gerald) v. State (Nev. 2018).
“We held that former NRS 484C.160(7) was unconstitutional because it permitted officers to use force to obtain a blood sample from a person without a warrant, consent, or other exception to the warrant requirement.”
Murray v. Williams (D. Nev. 2020).
“383, now NRS 484C.160) had not been held 20 unconstitutional, and it provided that “any person who drives or is in actual physical control 21 of a vehicle … shall be deemed to have given his consent to an evidentiary test of his 22 blood … to determine whether a controlled…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.160(1) — 6 cases
State v. Don Jacob Havatone, 389 P.3d 1251 (Ariz. 2017).
“§ 28-1321(C); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.160(1), (3). Alternatively, the court ruled that even if a warrant was required, the police acted in reliance on statutes and cases in effect when the blood was seized, thus satisfying the good-faith exception to the 3 STATE V.”
State v. Villarreal, David, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
“NRS 484C.160(1) provides that “any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway or on premises to which the public has access shall be deemed to have given his or her consent to an evidentiary test of his or her blood, urine, breath or other…”
Byars v. State, 2014 NV 85 (Nev. 2014).
“We further conclude that despite NRS 484C.160, the state's implied consent statute, the blood draw in this case was unlawful because appellant did not submit to the blood draw, and NRS 484C.”
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. v. Williams (Nev. 2018).
“Except as otherwise provided in subsections 4 and 5, any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway or on premises to which the public has access shall be deemed to have given his or her consent to an evidentiary test of his SUPREME COURT OF…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.160(2) — 1 case
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. v. Williams (Nev. 2018).
“Except as otherwise provided in subsections 4 and 5, any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway or on premises to which the public has access shall be deemed to have given his or her consent to an evidentiary test of his SUPREME COURT OF…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.160(3) — 1 case
State v. Don Jacob Havatone, 389 P.3d 1251 (Ariz. 2017).
“§ 28-1321(C); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.160(1), (3). Alternatively, the court ruled that even if a warrant was required, the police acted in reliance on statutes and cases in effect when the blood was seized, thus satisfying the good-faith exception to the 3 STATE V.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.160(7) — 9 cases
United States v. Sugiyama, 113 F. Supp. 3d 784 (D. Maryland 2015).
“Nevada’s implied-consent statute at the time of the defendant’s arrest allowed a police officer to use reasonable force to obtain a blood sample upon a driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test.”
Byars v. State, 2014 NV 85 (Nev. 2014).
“We further conclude that despite NRS 484C.160, the state's implied consent statute, the blood draw in this case was unlawful because appellant did not submit to the blood draw, and NRS 484C.”
State v. Quinteros (Regis) (Nev. 2016).
“3d 939 , 947 (2014) (concluding that a blood draw should not be excluded where an officer relied in good faith on the constitutional validity of NRS 484C.160). Because NRS 484.160(7) was ruled unconstitutional in violation of the Fourth Amendment in Byars, the exclusionary rule…”
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. v. Williams (Nev. 2018).
“Except as otherwise provided in subsections 4 and 5, any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway or on premises to which the public has access shall be deemed to have given his or her consent to an evidentiary test of his SUPREME COURT OF…”
Henderson (Gerald) v. State (Nev. 2018).
“We held that former NRS 484C.160(7) was unconstitutional because it permitted officers to use force to obtain a blood sample from a person without a warrant, consent, or other exception to the warrant requirement.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.