Peterson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 36 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. “Any person who operates any vehicle in this state is considered to have given his consent to a chemical analysis of his blood, breath or other bodily substance to determine the amount of alcohol in his blood, as provided in § 32-23-7, and to determine the presence of marijuana or any controlled drug or substance, provided that the test is administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having lawfully arrested the person for a violation of § 32-23-1. The person shall be requested by the officer to submit to the analysis and shall be advised by the officer that: (1) If he refuses to submit to the chemical analysis, none may be given; (2) If he refuses to submit to the chemical analysis, his driver’s license shall be revoked for one year, unless pursuant to § 32-23-11.1 he pleads guilty to a violation of § 32-23-1 prior to a revocation order being issued; and (3) He has the right to have a chemical analysis performed by a technician of his own choosing at his own expense, in addition to the test requested by the officer.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Assman · State v. Fischer

2. “[I]t is a ‘well-established rule that the probative value of a chemical test for intoxication diminishes with the passage of time.’ Ent v. State, Department of Motor Vehicles, 265 Cal.App.2d 936, 940 , 71 Cal.Rptr. 726, 729 (1968). ‘We are told the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops, as the body functions to eliminate it from the system.’ Blow v. Comm. of Motor Vehicles, 83 S.D. 628, 634 , 164 N.W.2d 351, 354 (1969), quoting from Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). ‘Such being true, the longer the test [is] delayed the more favorable the situation would become for the subject.’ Toms v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 60, 68 , 239 P.2d 812, 820 (1952). Therefore, ‘[cjlearly implied in the statute is the requirement that one of its described tests be submitted to and completed expeditiously; otherwise the purpose of the law would be frustrated.’ Smith v. Cozens, 25 Cal.App.3d 300, 302 , 101 Cal.Rptr. 787, 788 (1972). (emphasis in original)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re the Revocation of the Driver's License of Hopewell

3. “[T]he subsequent consent to take the test cures the prior first refusal when the request to take the test is made within a reasonable time after the prior first refusal; when such a test administered upon the subsequent consent would still be accurate; when testing equipment or facilities are still readily available; when honoring a request for a test, following a prior first refusal, will result in no substantial inconvenience or expense to the police; and when the individual requesting the test has been in police custody and under observation for the whole time since his arrest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pruitt v. State, Department of Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles