State Department of Motor Vehicles v. McElwain
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRosellini, J.
The question before the court in this case is: Does RCW 46.20 prevent the revocation of a motor vehicle operator’s license if the operator, although conscious, is intoxicated to such a degree that he is incapable of refusing to take the breath test as provided for in that statute? Our conclusion is that it does not.
The statute in question, the “Implied Consent Law,” adopted through the initiative procedure in 1969, provides in RCW 46.20.308(1):
Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of RCW…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hoban v. RiceOhio Supreme Court · 1971
- Bush v. BrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Connolly v. Department of Motor VehiclesWashington Supreme Court · 1971
- State Department of Highways v. NormandinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
- State v. StevensOregon Supreme Court · 1969
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Gonzales v. Department of LicensingWashington Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. Whitman County District CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- Medcalf v. Department of LicensingWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Medcalf v. State, Dept. of LicensingWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. RichardsonWashington Supreme Court · 1972
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.