Commonwealth v. Rutan’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 1995 · most notably 230 Pa. Super. 563 - Commonwealth v. Kloch (1974), 280 Pa. Super. 20 - Commonwealth v. Benson (1980)
27 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on McClain v. United States · 229 Pa. Super. 363 - Commonwealth v. Quarles · Commonwealth v. Robinson · Veilleux v. Springer · Newhouse v. Misterly
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Neither the Fourth Amendment ban against unreasonable searches and seizures nor the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prevents the Commonwealth from requiring that a driver submit to a breathalyzer test. . A driver therefore does not have a constitutional right to refuse. . . . Neither the Fourth nor Fifth Amendments prevents the admission into evidence of test results or of refusal. Since a driver has no constitutional right to refuse and no right to have evidence either of the test results or of the refusal excluded, we do not see how the Constitution requires that he be given warnings as to his lack of rights.” Moreover, because blood samples and breathalyzer tests are not testimonial evidence, they come under the protection of the fourth, not the fifth, amendment. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). Therefore, no Miranda warnings are required.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““(a) General rule.-Any person who operates a motor vehicle in this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have given consent to a chemical test of breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of blood if a police officer shall have reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The test shall be administered by qualified personnel and with equipment approved by the department. Qualified personnel means a physician or a technician acting under the physician’s direction or a police officer who has fulfilled the training requirements in the use of such equipment in a training program approved by the department. (c) Test results admissible in evidence.—In any summary proceeding or criminal proceeding in which the defendant is charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, the amount of alcohol in the defendant’s blood, as shown by a chemical analysis of his breath or blood, which analysis was conducted with equipment of a type approved by the Department of Health and operated by qualified personnel, shall be admissible in evidence.” (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Must a person lawfully requested to take a breathalyzer test be told that he can refuse to take a test and that the results of the test or evidence of his refusal can be used against him at trial. The answer is no.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.