Legal Opinion

Jury v. Department of Licensing

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 26, 2002No. Nos. 20462-6-III; 20580-1-IIIPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

Washington’s implied consent law prescribes that a driver impliedly consents to take a breath or blood test as a condition of the privilege of driving. RCW 46.20.308(1). But it also requires that the arresting officer inform the driver of his or her right to refuse a breath test, the consequences of refusing the breath test, and other licensing action which may follow criminal conviction. RCW 46.20.308(2). These required warnings are set out in the statute. Id. Here, the Washington State Patrol standard warnings varied from those set out in the statute by placement of a semicolon. The…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Cannon v. Department of LicensingWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Gonzales v. Department of LicensingWashington Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State v. Whitman County District CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Medcalf v. Department of LicensingWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Medcalf v. State, Dept. of LicensingWashington Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. WilliamsonIdaho Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. Lynch v. Department of LicensingCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  3. State v. ElkinsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  4. Jury v. State, Dept. of LicensingCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  5. State v. KochCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005

8 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