Hannoy v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that blood draw was unconstitutional and that implied consent law did not function as an exception to the warrant requirement where there was no probable cause to believe that the defendant was intoxicated and the defendant did not explicitly consent to the draw
• \Findings of fact are clearly erroneous only when the record lacks any evidence to support them.\
• finding erroneous admission of blood aleohol test not harmless, even though trial court properly admitted results of second test
• law enforcement may forcibly obtain blood sample from driver without warrant or consent but only when they have probable cause to believe driver was intoxicated
• deputy never discussed implied consent law, stating instead, “‘[I]t is my duty to check your blood for blood alcohol’”
• “For purposes of [Chapter 9- 30-7], police shall offer a chemical test to any driver whom the officer has probable cause to believe was involved in an accident resulting in serious bodily injury or death.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).