IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.R.M.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the use of such an adverse inference does not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
• holding that implied consent schemes that allow the State to admit a refusal to submit to testing into evidence do not violate the Fifth Amendment
• holding that the use of such an adverse inference does not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination
• implying that a nonverbal refusal can be considered less “testimonial” than a verbal refusal combined with a statement of the reason for the refusal
• stating that under Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), a state may “force a person suspected of driving while intoxicated to submit to a blood alcohol test”
• use of refusal against defendant at his trial does not violate Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).