Legal Opinion
State v. Baldwin
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided December 20, 2001No. 19390-0-IIIPublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSchultheis, J.
— Washington’s implied consent statute, RCW 46.20.308, authorizes a police officer who reasonably believes that a driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs to ask the driver to take a breath or blood test. The driver is deemed to have given consent, but may refuse. Refusal will result in various repercussions, including the admissibility of the refusal into evidence at a subsequent criminal trial. RCW 46.20.308(2); RCW 46.61.517.
Logan Baldwin was stopped on suspicion of driving under the influence. He admitted to a police officer that he had drunk one glass of wine and had taken an…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- State v. PowellWashington Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. CurranWashington Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. ShultzWashington Supreme Court · 1999
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- York v. Wahkiakum School Dist. No. 200Washington Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. MartinesWashington Supreme Court · 2015
- State v. BaldwinCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Bernardi v. KleinDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2010
- Stevens County v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.