Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Smith

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 6, 2011No. 10SA396Published

1DissentJustice Martinez

The substantive issue in this appeal is whether the express consent statute, section 42-4-1301.1, C.R.S. (2010), and the parallel express consent provision in the vehicular assault statute, section 18-8-205(4)(a), C.R.S. (2010), require a police officer to request a driver's cooperation in the completion of a blood sample test before ordering involuntary testing. The majority claims it "cannot reasonably interpret" the statutory scheme to require a police officer to request a driver's cooperation in performing a blood draw. Maj. op. at 1162. I respectfully disagree.

The plain language of both…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Turbyne v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2007
  2. People v. CrossSupreme Court of Colorado · 2006
  3. CLPF-Parkridge One, L.P. v. Harwell Investments, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2005
  4. People v. MacLarenColorado Court of Appeals · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API