Blitzstein v. Department of Motor Vehicles
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LOW, P.J.
In this case, we hold that the advisements required by the Implied Consent Law (Veh. Code, §§ 23157, 23157.5) to be given to a *140motorist suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs are neither inherently confusing nor ambiguous, and plaintiff’s refusal to chemical testing was not excused.
Plaintiff Lou Blitzstein had his driver’s license suspended for six months following an administrative hearing wherein the referee found that he failed to take a blood test for drugs after being requested to do so by the arresting officer. (Veh. Code, § 13353, subds. (a), (b).)…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Star Motor Imports, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- McDonnell v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Cahall v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Goodman v. OrrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Larson v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994