Sessions v. Moseley

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the officer’s question, “[W]ill you take a breath test,” was ambiguous, in part, because “he did not specify the aspect of the implied-consent law to which he was referring.”
• concluding that the officer’s question, “[W]ill you take a breath test,” was ambiguous, in part, because “he did not specify the aspect of the implied-consent law to which he was referring”
• noting that whether a breath test is permissible as a search incident to arrest for DUII is an open question under Oregon law
• concluding that the state did not meet its burden to establish the admissibil- ity of the defendant’s breath-test refusal where the officer’s questioning was ambiguous as to whether he was seeking the defendant’s consent or physical submission
• concluding that the defendant’s refusal was inadmissible where the officer’s question “will you take a breath test” was ambiguous as to whether the offi- cer was seeking the defendant’s submission to the physical act or seeking constitutionally significant consent to search
• observing that the search of a suspect’s breath is pro- tected under Article I, section 9

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).