Carrillo v. Houser
Court of Appeals of Arizona
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
- State v. ChappleArizona Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. CanezArizona Supreme Court · 2002
- Gorman v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. ParedesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1991
- State v. KananenArizona Supreme Court · 1965
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Carrillo v. HouserArizona Supreme Court · 2010
- Carrillo v. HouserCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009