State v. Minkoff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In addition to any test administered at the direction of a peace officer, a person may request that an independent blood sample be drawn by a physician or registered nurse for the purpose of determining any measured amount or detected presence of alcohol, drugs, or any combination of alcohol and drugs in the person. The peace officer may not unreasonably impede the person's right to obtain an independent blood test. The officer may but has no duty to transport the person to a medical facility or otherwise assist the person in obtaining the test . The cost of an independent blood test is the sole responsibility of the person requesting the test. The failure or inability to obtain an independent test by a person does not preclude the admissibility in evidence of any test given at the direction of a peace officer.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. L. Neva · State v. Smerker

2. “It is undisputed that a person accused of a criminal offense has a due process right to obtain existing exculpatory evidence. See State v. Swanson (1986), 222 Mont. 357, 360 , 722 P.2d 1155, 1157 . It also is undisputed that, when the charged offense is DUI, the accused has a right to obtain a test of the amount of alcohol in his or her blood independent of the test offered by the arresting officer, without regard to whether the accused has taken or rejected the offered test. Swanson, 222 Mont. at 360-61 , 722 P.2d at 1157 . Finally, it is undisputed that, while a law enforcement officer has no duty to affirmatively assist a person accused of DUI in obtaining an independent blood test, the officer cannot frustrate or impede the person's efforts to do so. See Swanson, 222 Mont. at 361 , 722 P.2d at 1157-58 . Moreover, we have held that the accused must be informed of his or her right to independent testing and that failure to so advise is a due process violation. State v. Strand (1997), 286 Mont. 122, 127 , 951 P.2d 552, 555 . In the present case, the District Court relied on [ State v ] Sidmore [ 286 Mont. 218 , 951 P.2d 558 (1997)] in denying Minkoff's motion to dismiss. There, we clarified and, in fact, limited "the Swanson rule" that a DUI accused has a due process right to an independent blood test. We held that two criteria must be established to support an allegation of denial of due process rights with regard to the right to an independent test: (1) the accused must ti”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Anstey

3. “[o]ne accused of DUI 'has a right to obtain a sobriety test independent of that offered by the arresting officer.' " Neva , ¶ 13 (collecting cases). ¶11 The State argues that "the remedy in Strand of suppressing the BAC test results cannot be granted in this case because the State did not 'succeed[ ] in obtaining a blood or breath test pursuant to the implied consent law,' " quoting our language in Strand . The State argues that the due process violation found in Strand did not occur here because Moore's blood sample was obtained by a search warrant, and not under the implied consent statutes. Moore replies that one accused of DUI "has a due process right to be advised of his right to an independent test if the State is taking his blood pursuant to either the implied consent law or via search warrant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Moore