State v. Faust’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
July 2004
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Schmerber v. State of California · 208 Wis. 2d 166 - In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. Cook · 173 Wis. 2d 529 - State v. Bohling
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a warrantless nonconsensual blood draw from a person arrested on probable cause for a drunk driving offense is constitutional based on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, even if the person offers to submit to a chemical test other than the blood test chosen by law enforcement, provided that the blood draw complies with the factors enumerated in Bohling.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Faust“once an individual arrested on probable cause for OWI has provided a satisfactory and useable chemical test, the exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless and nonconsen-sual blood draw no longer exist.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Faust“[t]he exigency that exists because of dissipating alcohol does not disappear until a satisfactory, useable chemical test has been taken.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Faust
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.