Legal Opinion

Carrillo v. Houser

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided September 1, 2009No. 1 CA-SA 09-0042PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SWANN, Judge.

¶ 1 Arizona’s Implied Consent Law, A.R.S. § 28-1321, requires the state to obtain a warrant before drawing a blood sample from a DUI suspect unless the suspect “expressly agree[s]” to submit to the blood test. A.R.S. § 28-1321(B), (D) (Supp.2005). We hold that the “express agreement” required by the statute must be affirmatively and unequivocally manifested by words or conduct, and may not be inferred from a suspect’s mere failure to communicate clear objection to the test.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 On December 31, 2006, Carrillo was arrested for (1) DUI, (2)…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State v. ChappleArizona Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State v. CanezArizona Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Gorman v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1987
  4. State v. ParedesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1991
  5. State v. KananenArizona Supreme Court · 1965

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Carrillo v. HouserArizona Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Carrillo v. HouserCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API