Jean-Marie v. Tucker

How courts have described this case

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

• finding “chemical tests performed in compliance with the implied consent law satisfy the Fourth Amendment as consent searches, independently of Schmerber-McNeely”
• upholding search because defendant consented under persuasion of the implied consent law
• “The fact that there are [criminal] penalties for refusal to cooperate with [OVUII] testing upon arrest does not render the consent illusory or coercive.”
• “[C]onsent is not invalid under the Fourth Amendment simply because it was given in advance and in exchange for a related benefit, and this is all the implied consent law accomplishes.”
• “[I]t is no great innovation to say that implied consent is legally effective consent, at least so long as the arrestee has not purported to withdraw that consent”
• “[C]onsent is not invalid under the Fourth Amendment simply because it was given in advance and in exchange for a related benefit, and this is all the implied consent law accomplishes.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).