18 U.S.C. § 3118
Implied consent for certain tests
1990—Pub. L. 101–647 renumbered second section 3117 of this title as this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases, 1992–2015 · leading case: Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194 (1993).
Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “, 18 U. S. C. § 3118 (a) (1988 ed., Supp. II) ("such person's driving while under the influence of a drug or alcohol"), kidnaping, see, e.”
United States v. Moran, 65 M.J. 178 (C.A.A.F. 2007). “18 U.S.C. § 3118 (b). 17 United States v.”
United States v. Prasit Imngren, United States of Am. v. Kenneth Johnson, 98 F.3d 811 (4th Cir. 1996). “Such a comparison ignores the fact that the territorial scope of a state suspension is much broader than the territorial scope of Army Regulation 190-5 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3118 (b). In fact, despite their suspensions, Imngren and Johnson may still drive on most of the roads in the…”
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. & Pub. Saf. v. Lovett, 874 P.2d 1247 (Nev. 1994). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3118 (1993). However, as the sanction is limited to the federal enclave and is only enforceable by a federal judge, this provision does not conflict with or duplicate the state's broader sanction of revoking the license altogether.”
United States v. Sauls, 981 F. Supp. 909 (D. Maryland 1997). “The defendant has raised the following issues concerning the chemical test: (1) the military police should have utilized the federal implied consent law under 18 U.S.C. § 3118 rather than the state procedure under Trans.”
Brune v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 130 P.3d 1037 (Haw. 2006). “” Aso, listed as “prescribing directives” on the Implied Consent form are 18 U.S.C. § 3118 15 and the Administrative Revocation Law, Hawaii Revised Statutes.”
United States v. Sugiyama, 113 F. Supp. 3d 784 (D. Maryland 2015). “23 and 18 U.S.C. § 3118 apply to this case. Title 36 C.”
United States v. Daniel G. Chapel, 55 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1995). “Chapel contends that the taking of his blood without an arrest violated the federal “implied consent” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3118 . Section 3118 provides, in pertinent part: (a) Consent.”
United States v. Dillon, 983 F. Supp. 1037 (D. Kan. 1997). “Furthermore, there is a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3118 , which is an implied consent statute for federal jurisdictions.”
United States v. Swift Hawk, 125 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D.S.D. 2000). “] The federal “implied consent law” is found at 18 U.S.C. § 3118 . The implied consent for a blood test does not come into existence unless the driver has first been arrested for any offense arising from such person having operated a motor vehicle in the special maritime or…”
United States v. Love, 141 F.R.D. 315 (D. Colo. 1992). “*318 The second statute cited is 18 U.S.C. § 3118 . That statute reads as follows: (a) Consent.”
United States v. Pond, 36 M.J. 1050 (1993). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3118 (a) (1990). *1057 Therefore, if appellant had been prosecuted in a California court, California implied consent law and the Fourth Amendment would have applied to the taking of appellant’s urine sample.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3118(b) — 1 case
United States v. Prasit Imngren, United States of Am. v. Kenneth Johnson, 98 F.3d 811 (4th Cir. 1996). “Such a comparison ignores the fact that the territorial scope of a state suspension is much broader than the territorial scope of Army Regulation 190-5 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3118 (b). In fact, despite their suspensions, Imngren and Johnson may still drive on most of the roads in the…”
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.