Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Smith

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 25, 2013PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice BAER.

We accepted allowance of appeal in this case to examine whether the Superior Court erred in determining that police officers, when seeking consent from an individual for the testing of his blood for the presence of drugs or alcohol following a traffic accident, must inform the individual that the results of the test may be used for criminal or prosecutorial purposes. To the extent the Superior Court held that an officer must inform an individual that a positive result in a blood test may have criminal repercussions, and such failure renders any consent to the blood test…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Florida v. BostickSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. United States v. DraytonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. Commonwealth v. BomarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. EvansSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  2. Commonwealth v. EnnelsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. Commonwealth v. RobertsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  4. Commonwealth v. Valdivia, R., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  5. Commonwealth v. VenableSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018

52 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