About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

10 Pac. L. J. 141 (1979)
The Admissibility of Refusals in Drunk Driving Prosecutions: A Violation of the Fifth Amendment

handle is hein.journals/mcglr10 and id is 159 raw text is: The Admissibility of Refusals in Drunk Driving Prosecutions: A Violation of the Fifth Amendment The drinking driver is one of the most serious problems on the high- ways.' The destruction caused by the drinking driver has led to a vari- ety of measures2 designed to facilitate his or her arrest and conviction in the several states. One of the specific measures utilized by various states is generally known as the implied consent statute.3 In California, for example, Section 13353 of the California Vehicle Code4 provides 1. The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 837,910 arrests in 1976 for driving under the influence (DUD. UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNI- FORM CRIME REPORTS FOR THE UNITED STATES 174 (1976). In 1973 the number of DUI arrests was 653,914 and 277,703 of those were in California. UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS FOR THE UNITED STATES 123 (1973); CRIME AND DELINQUENCY IN CALIFORNIA, LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT PROGRAM REPORT (CRIMES AND ARRESTS) 18 (1974); see Comment, Murder Convictions for Homicides Committed in the Course ofDriving While Intoxicated, 8 CUM. L. REv., 477, 477 nn.1 & 2 (1977). 2. These measures include on-the-scene sobriety tests such as touching the nose and walking heel to toe as well as the use of a number of devices designed to test blood alcohol content. 3. See R. ERWIN, DEFENSE OF DRUNK DRIVING CASES §33.01 (3d ed. 1977) (hereinafter cited as R. ERwIN). 4. (a) Any person who drives a motor vehicle upon a highway shall be deemed to have given his consent to a chemical test of his blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if lawfully arrested for any offense alleg- edly committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The test shall be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe such person was driv- ing a motor vehicle upon a highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Such person shall be told that his failure to submit to or complete such a chemical test will result in the suspension of his privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of six months. The person arrested shall have the choice of whether the test shall be of his blood, breath or urine, and he shall be advised by the officer that he has such choice. If the person arrested either is incapable, or states that he is incapable, of completing any cho- sen test, he shall then have the choice of submitting to and completing any of the remain- ing tests or test, and he shall be advised by the officer that he has such choice. Such person shall also be advised by the officer that he does not have the right to have

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most