Legal Opinion

People v. Simpson

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided April 17, 2017No. Supreme Court Case 15SA330PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hood

¶ 1 Colorado’s Expressed Consent Statute provides that any motorist who drives on the roads of the state has consented to take a blood or breath test when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer with probable cause to suspect the motorist of driving under the influence. In this interlocutory appeal, we review the trial court’s ruling that an advisement accurately informing the defendant, William Paul Simpson, of this law amounted to coercion that rendered his consent to a blood test involuntary and required suppression of the test result.

¶ 2 By driving in Colorado, Simpson consented…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  3. Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert BernardSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  4. Winston v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. People v. MathenySupreme Court of Colorado · 2002

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. People v. StockSupreme Court of Colorado · 2017
  2. v. RaiderColorado Court of Appeals · 2021
  3. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Glen Gary MONTOYASupreme Court of Colorado · 2024
  4. Amended September 26, 2017 State of Iowa v. Dale Dean Pettijohn Jr.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2017
  5. Carter v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2017

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