State legislatures around the United States have made a constitutional mess of what is permitted when it comes to getting a blood sample from a person suspected of DUI. Arizona is no exception to this problem.
It starts with implied consent
You probably did not realize what was in the fine print when applied for your driver’s license. You agreed to a deal that would last the rest of your life. You get to drive. The government gets your consent to take a blood, breath or urine sample when the police ask for it.
Of course, you didn’t really have a choice in the matter. It was a take it or leave it deal. Either you give consent for the rest of your driving life or you can’t have a driver’s license.
This agreement, to consent at the request of the police, is called “implied consent.”
What can an officer say about refusing?
What must an officer advise a person to make consent voluntary under the Fourth Amendment?
State v. DeAnda, 434 P.3d 1183 (Ariz. 2019) – Informing a person of the consequences of refusing to submit to a chemical, before asking if the person will submit, does not make the person’s subsequent consent involuntary under the Fourth Amendment.
Does a person’s agreement to take a test have to be voluntary under Arizona law?
Diaz v. Bernini, 435 P.3d 457 (Ariz. 2019) – Arizona does not require a person’s consent to a breath test to be voluntary.
Arizona’s Medical Blood Exception
Diaz v. Van Wie, 426 P.3d 1214 (2018)
The Exclusionary Rule
Does the exclusionary rule apply to Arizona’s implied consent law? Soza v. Marner, 430 P.3d 1265 (App. 2018).