How have courts interpreted implied consent in the context of drunk driving laws?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ascencio, D066806 (Cal. App. 2015):
(Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, 412 U.S. at p. 227.) In the context of drunk-driving laws, California (along with all the other states) has enacted an implied consent statute that places a driver lawfully arrested for drunk driving on notice that he or she has consented to a chemical test to determine blood-alcohol concentration. ( 23612; see McNeely, supra, 133 S.Ct. at p. 1566.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have courts interpreted statutory interpretation in the context of employment law? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How has the California Supreme Court interpreted statutory interpretation in the context of the California Family Law Act? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted consent in cases involving consent and consent? (California, United States of America)
Does the court have any case law with respect to the interpretation of the law in the context of personal injury cases? (California, United States of America)
How has the court interpreted the law in the context of implied malice murder? (California, United States of America)
How has the court interpreted the case law in the context of employment law? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the law in the context of a personal injury case? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the interpretation of a motor vehicle insurance contract in the context of an arbitration? (California, United States of America)
In our interpretation of federal law in the context of Tahl v. Tahl, what is the current state of the law on admonitions on each of the three constitutional rights? (California, United States of America)
