Legal Opinion
People v. Pickard
California Superior Court
Decided June 30, 2017No. Appellate Division No.: CA269335PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION/STATEMENT OF REASONS (CCP § 77(d)) BY THE COURT
BY THE COURT
*14PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On February 19, 2016, the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. When the officer gave the Implied Consent Law admonishment, he told defendant that she'd have to submit to a breath or blood test. He further explained that the breath machine is unable to retain any kind of a sample for retesting. On the other hand, with the blood test, the nurse would draw two small vials of blood-"[o]ne of those vials goes to the crime lab and gets tested for alcohol .... The second…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Herring v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- State v. BinnerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. Vannesse, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- State of Arizona v. Ian MitchamArizona Supreme Court · 2024
- People v. VannesseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
- People v. VannesseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018