Legal Opinion

Dunlap v. Department of Motor Vehicles

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 23, 1984No. F003099PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VAN AUKEN. *

The sole issue in this proceeding is whether or not an arresting officer is required to provide, to a suspected drunk driver, an additional opportunity to complete either a blood, breath or urine test after that driver initially has refused to comply with the requirements of California Vehicle Code section 13353 subdivision (a)(2). 1 As we shall explain, the trial court was in error when it ruled that the police officer was required to “reoffer” the blood test to the respondent herein. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and reinstate the original…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Skinner v. SillasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  2. Barrie v. AlexisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  3. Morgan v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Webb v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  2. Espinoza v. ShiomotoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  3. Hildebrand v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. Garcia v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. People v. McHughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

3 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