Legal Opinion

People v. Ling

California Superior Court

Decided May 5, 2017No. AD-5574PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Davis, III, P.J.

*3I. INTRODUCTION.

In 1966, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a nonconsensual blood draw taken from a suspect arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol did not violate the Fourth Amendment because exigent circumstances existed that allowed for a blood draw to be conducted in a reasonable manner incident to the defendant's arrest. ( Schmerber v. California (1966) 384 U.S. 757, 770-71, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 ( Schmerber ).) Almost fifty years later in 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a nonconsensual blood draw taken from a…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Bumper v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  5. Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. People v. Vannesse, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  2. People v. Meza, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  3. People v. Gutierrez, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  4. People v. AlvarezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
  5. People v. GutierrezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018

4 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