Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

State v. Moore

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 2013No. CC 091131; CA A145081; SC S060134Published

1Concurring in the judgmentKistler, J.

After an officer stopped defendant for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), he asked defendant to consent to a blood draw and also advised him of the consequences of refusing to consent. As the majority notes, the officer told defendant that, if he refused to consent to a blood draw, his driving privileges would be suspended, he would not be eligible for a hardship permit for up to a year, he would be subject to a fine, and “evidence of the refusal * * * may be offered against [him].” Having consented, defendant now seeks to suppress the results of the blood draw on the ground…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Garrity v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  3. State v. NewtonOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  4. State v. DouglasOregon Supreme Court · 1971
  5. State v. MacHucaOregon Supreme Court · 2010

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

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

Powered by the Exa API