People v. Borchard-Ruhland
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
We granted leave in this case to determine whether defendant’s blood alcohol test results were properly suppressed where the police did not attempt to comply with the requirements of the implied consent statute, MCL 257.625c; MSA 9.2325(3). Because the clear language of the implied consent statute requires an arrest as a triggering event, we hold that its provisions do not apply to defendant. Rather, the validity of defendant’s consent to chemical testing is evaluated under the standards of US Const, Am IV, and Const 1963, art 1, § 11. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Roberts v. Auto-Owners InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by154 opinions
- People v. AldrichMichigan Court of Appeals · 2001
- Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
- Robertson v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2002
- People v. BrownMichigan Court of Appeals · 2008
- People v. Metamora Water Service, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
149 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.