The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to any vehicle which is driven or attended by any person shall give his or her correct name, address and registration number of the vehicle he or she is driving, and shall upon request exhibit his or her driver license and his or her security verification form, as defined in Section 7-600 of this title, to the person struck or the driver or occupant of or person attending any vehicle collided with, and shall render to any person injured in such accident reasonable assistance, including the carrying, or the making of arrangements for the carrying, of such person to a physician, surgeon or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that such treatment is necessary or if such carrying is requested by the injured person. Any driver who provides information required by this section which is intentionally inaccurate shall be subject to the provisions of Section 10-103 of this title. Added by Laws 1961, p. 371, § 10-104, eff. Sept. 1, 1961. Amended by Laws 1985, c. 134, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1985; Laws 1991, c. 237, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Laws 1993, c. 192, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Laws 1995, c. 23, § 12, eff. Nov. 1, 1995; Laws 1995, c. 313, § 2, eff. July 1, 1995; Laws 2005, c. 394, § 8, emerg. eff. June 6, 2005; Laws 2025, c. 172, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2025.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case:
Stewart v. State, 2019 OK CR 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
Stewart v. State, 2019 OK CR 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
· cites it 12× “The district court denied his motion to suppress, ruling Title 47 O.S.2011, § 10-104(B) permitted the seizure of his blood without any search warrant or showing of probable cause and exigent circumstances.”
Cripps v. State, 2016 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
· cites it 13× “Any driver who could be cited for an accident resulting in a person's immediate death shall submit to alcohol testing as soon as practicable after the accident; the fact of the accident serves as probable cause.”
Stewart v. State, 442 P.3d 158 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “ANALYSIS ¶3 Stewart argues the warrantless, nonconsensual seizure of his blood and subsequent admission of its chemical analysis at trial violated his state and federal constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Rogers, 2006 OK 54 (Okla. 2006).
· cites it 4× “'s knowledge and awareness at the time of the accident that a collision had occurred (and his understanding at that time of the consequences for his driving while intoxicated), instead of providing any identifying information and/or assistance to the driver of the other vehicle…”
Sanders v. State, 2002 OK CR 42 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “1999, § 11-902(A), driving while intoxicated, override the general provisions of 47 O.S.Supp.1999, § 10-104(B) ¶ 6 Both the present case and Guest involved fatality accidents.”
State v. Declerck, 317 P.3d 794 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “The State cites Oklahoma Statute, Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 10-104 (B) (1998 Supp.”
Metoyer v. State, 2022 OK CR 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “There is nothing confusing let alone overbroad or inaccurate about the language used. The phrase "substantial factor" as used in this instruction is self-explanatory and does not require additional explanation.”
Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Pope, 507 P.3d 688 (Okla. 2022).
“" Powell's argument created dichotomous classifications of (1) damages with scienter (classified as punitive by Powell) versus damages without scienter (classified as non-punitive by Powell), and (2) a penal and criminal (punitive) remedy versus a civil (non-punitive) proceeding…”
Bemo v. State, 298 P.3d 1190 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013).
“An arrest is not a prerequisite for the withdrawal of blood under 47 O.S.2011, § 10-104(B). Guest v. State, 2002 OK CR 5, ¶ 6 , 42 P.”
State v. Meitler, 347 P.3d 670 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
“Although tire Declerck panel found the Oklahoma appellate court’s constitutional analysis “unsatisfying and, therefore, unpersuasive,” the fact remains the Kansas Legislature was advised that at least one state had passed a similar law, Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 10-104 (B) (1998…”
Lamb v. State, 488 P.2d 1295 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971).
· cites it 2× “Defendant filed a supplemental brief asserting that the requirements of 47 O.S.1961, Section 10-102, and 47 O.S.1961, Section 10-104, violate defendant’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.”
Cripps v. State, 2016 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
· cites it 21× “47 O.S.2011, § 10-104(B). Section 10-104(B) applies to all drivers involved in fatality accidents, whether or not they are cited for a traffic offense or arrested at the scene.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 10-104(A) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 10-104(B) — 8 cases
Stewart v. State, 2019 OK CR 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
“The district court denied his motion to suppress, ruling Title 47 O.S.2011, § 10-104(B) permitted the seizure of his blood without any search warrant or showing of probable cause and exigent circumstances.”
Cripps v. State, 2016 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
“Any driver who could be cited for an accident resulting in a person's immediate death shall submit to alcohol testing as soon as practicable after the accident; the fact of the accident serves as probable cause.”
Stewart v. State, 442 P.3d 158 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
“ANALYSIS ¶3 Stewart argues the warrantless, nonconsensual seizure of his blood and subsequent admission of its chemical analysis at trial violated his state and federal constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Sanders v. State, 2002 OK CR 42 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
“1999, § 11-902(A), driving while intoxicated, override the general provisions of 47 O.S.Supp.1999, § 10-104(B) ¶ 6 Both the present case and Guest involved fatality accidents.”
Bemo v. State, 298 P.3d 1190 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013).
“An arrest is not a prerequisite for the withdrawal of blood under 47 O.S.2011, § 10-104(B). Guest v. State, 2002 OK CR 5, ¶ 6 , 42 P.”
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.