Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Don Jacob Havatone

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 2017No. CR-15-0387-PRPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

PELANDER, V.C.J.,

joined by BRUTINEL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶ 38 For almost fifty years, Arizona’s “implied consent” law has specifically and expressly allowed law enforcement to obtain for testing a blood sample of a DUI suspect who is unconscious. A.R.S. § 28-1321(0); see former A.R.S. § 28-691(0) (1969 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 41, § 1). Pursuant to that statutory authority, when the events in this case occurred in September 2012, police officers (and for that matter a conscientious police department or its legal counsel) would have reasonably believed that they could…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Brigham City v. StuartSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  5. Scott v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

25 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