Legal Opinion

Opinion No. (1984)

Missouri Attorney General Reports

Decided August 15, 1984Published

1Opinion of the Court

Dear Representative Sharpe:

This opinion is in response to your request asking:

Reading Sections 577.020 to 577.041, RSMo, together is consent to the testing procedures, particularly the invasive procedure necessary for blood testing, provided for in the statutes, negating the need for obtaining explicit consent for the procedure at the time the procedure is administered?

To what extent, if any, is the hospital in which the test sample is obtained and the hospital's employees free from liability for participating in the procedure? [sic]

If a person under arrest refuses the tests, as provided for…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Spradling v. DeimekeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1975
  4. Warner v. Southwestern Bell Telephone CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
  5. Staley v. Missouri Director of RevenueSupreme Court of Missouri · 1981

11 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