Peter Burnett and Daniel C. Ryan v. Municipality of Anchorage, Raymond Roop v. State of Alaska

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing between refusal to submit and refusal to consent and viewing distinction as meaningful in large part because consent was irrelevant given that the chemical tests qualified for the search incident to lawful arrest or exigent circumstances exception
• “Consent in the constitutional sense is only required where the defendant has a legal right to refuse.”
• “Consent in the constitutional sense is only required where the defendant has a legal right to refuse.”
• pre-McNeely, examining Alaska’s implied consent statute and holding “the breathalyzer examination in question is an appropriate and reasonable search incident to arrest which appellants have no constitutional right to refuse”
• addressing the merits of the petitioners’ claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).