People v. Ling
California Superior Court
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
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Bumper v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- People v. Vannesse, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- People v. Meza, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- People v. Gutierrez, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- People v. AlvarezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
- People v. GutierrezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.