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