But how exactly does one apply clear consent? If a person does not say anything and does not object to a blood test, then that is not considered a legal form of consent. Police must inform the drunk driving suspect of his or her rights and explain the consequences of refusing a blood-alcohol test. Even with the recent Supreme Court decision, the consequences of refusing a test still remain the same. Blood-alcohol test refusers in Arizona will still have their license suspended for one year.
The Supreme Court's decision stems from the case of Jose Carillo's 2007 DUI arrest. He was too sick to take a breath test so one Phoenix police officer took a blood sample from him without his consent. Phoenix DUI attorneys argued that Jose Carillo's silence was not a form of consent and that the man's blood test results should not be used as evidence of impairment.
Monday's ruling ended up being a unanimous decision in favor of the DUI suspect. While the decision may not have an effect on many DUI cases, it does give Arizona DUI attorneys a little more leverage with certain cases.
Related Resources:
-
Implied Consent (FindLaw)
-
Drunk Driving FAQ (FindLaw)
-
Find a Phoenix DUI Attorney (FindLaw)
ShareThis
