State of Arizona v. Francisco L. Encinas Valenzuela
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1DissentEckerstrom, Chief Judge
¶ 36 When a law enforcement officer instructs a person who has been arrested for DUI that “Arizona law requires” him to “submit to” warrantless chemical tests to determine his blood alcohol concentration (BAC), as occurred here, the officer is asserting a claim of legal authority to conduct a search. As the Supreme Court held in Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548-49, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968), a person’s “acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority” makes the evidence obtained from it inadmissible under a theory of voluntary consent.
¶ 37 The admonition here does not merely…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Florida v. BostickSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Bumper v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.