254 Pa. Super. 233 - Commonwealth v. Funk’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Com., Dept. of Transp. v. McFarren (1987), 280 Pa. Super. 20 - Commonwealth v. Benson (1980)
68 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 Schmerber v. State of California · Cupp v. Murphy · 229 Pa. Super. 363 - Commonwealth v. Quarles · Commonwealth v. Rutan · Commonwealth v. Watkins
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) If any person placed under arrest for a violation of section 3731 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substances) is requested to submit to chemical testing and refuses to do so, the test shall not be conducted but upon notice by the police officer, the department shall suspend the operating privilege of the person for a period of 12 months. (2) It shall be the duty of the police officer to inform the person that the persons operating privilege will be suspended upon refusal to submit to chemical testing.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“While the legislature has provided by statute that a driver, whom the police have probable cause to believe has been operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, may refuse to submit to a chemical test for blood alcohol content, this right of refusal is not a constitutional right but rather is created solely by operation of the statute. “ ‘Neither the Fourth Amendment bar against unreasonable searches and seizures nor 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. He has no right to refuse other than as provided in the implied consent law. Neither the Fourth nor Fifth Amendments prevents the admission into evidence of test results or of refusal____ A driver has no constitutional right to refuse and no right to have evidence either of the test results or of the refusal excluded____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““As the law now stands, no matter which alternative a driver chooses, there will be an evidentiary result: either there will be the result of a test, or there will be a fact, refusal, to be taken into account in deciding guilt or innocence. However, if we held that no test may be taken on someone who is incapable of an intelligent choice, an inconsistency would appear, because there would be no evidentiary result: there would be no test result, and certainly no inference could be drawn from an unconscious person’s ‘refusal’ to take a test. Thus the Commonwealth would be left with nothing. It is more reasonable to say, and we hold, that under such circumstances as are presented here a test may be taken.” Supra, 254 Pa.Super. at 240-241 , 385 A.2d at 999 . Thus, under Funk , even if we held that appellant’s consent was not knowing and voluntary, we would still uphold the validity of the test.”
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.