Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California· 4/11/2014

People v. Harris

Citations

225 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 1
170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 729
2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 342

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).

Judges: Defendant

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.