Jun 202010
 
 June 20, 2010  Court, Laws, Surveillance

Dave Sheffield writes:

About a week ago, the Supreme Court of Arizona issued its decision in the case of Carrillo v. Houser, No. CV-09-0285-PR (Ariz. 2010), which presented a dispute about Arizona’s implied consent law. The State contended that the consent that the law implied extended to a warrantless chemical alcohol test unless the person to be tested explicitly refused. Jose Carrillo took the flip side position, arguing that the law required the police to obtain a warrant to test unless the defendant explicitly agreed to the test.

Read more about the case and the state Supreme Court’s opinion on DUIAttorney.com

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.