Legal Opinion

City of Kent v. Beigh

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 2001No. 70264-1PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSanders, J.

Division One of the Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that suppressed the results of an alcohol blood test in a driving under the influence case. We affirm the result reached by Division One but for different reasons.

The first question is whether RCW 46.20.308(3) provides the sole authority for an officer to request a motorist to submit to a blood test. A plain reading of the implied consent statute reveals that it does not.

The second question is whether a motorist whose breath twice registers an “interference detected” during a breath alcohol test is deemed to have a physical injury,…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  3. Cockle v. Dept. of Labor and IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Cockle v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Smith v. Stillwell-SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1998

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Cannon v. Department of LicensingWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  3. State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  4. Mader v. Health Care AuthorityWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Lundberg v. ColemanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API