State v. McNichols’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Ariz. · 116 Wash. 2d 135 - City of Spokane v. Kruger · 113 Wash. 2d 823 - City of Seattle v. Orwick · 13 Wash. App. 624 - Greenwood v. Department of Motor Vehicles · 93 Wash. 2d 722 - City of Blaine v. Suess
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The State contends the proper remedy for violation of Mr. McNichols' right to obtain an independent blood test is suppression of the State's breath test results. It argues the purpose of the independent test is to contest the accuracy of the State's breath test; therefore, if a defendant is unfairly deprived of an opportunity to challenge the State's test results, denying use of those results levels the playing field and leaves the defendant free to contest any other evidence of intoxication introduced by the State. We recognize dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, which is unwarranted when suppression of evidence will eliminate any prejudice caused by governmental misconduct. . . . Suppression is inadequate in the present case. In a DWI case the defendant's condition at the time of his arrest is critical to his defense. To defend against the charge against him, Mr. McNichols would have to present evidence that he was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of his arrest. That is true regardless whether the State introduces BAC test results or other evidence of intoxication. The State's interference with Mr. McNichols' right to obtain an independent alcohol concentration test foreclosed a fair trial by forever depriving him of material evidence which could potentially have supported a claim that he was innocent. Suppression of the State's BAC test results would not eliminate the prejudice because a favorable blood test is reliable evidence of nonintoxicati”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Anstey“the booking officer unreasonably interfered with Mr. McNichols' right to gather evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McNichols
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.