Birchfield v. North Dakota: Admissibility of Evidence of Defendant's Refusal to Submit to Chemical Testing--Unreasonable Searches and Seizures (PDF)

Evidence that an arrested motorist refused a chemical test can be devastating to the defense of a drunk driving charge. Admissibility of refusal evidence involves consideration of constitutional rights, statutory provisions, and rules of evidence. A 2016 U.S. Supreme Court decision significantly changed the landscape with regard to criminal refusal statutes.
In Stock
ISBN: 9781422429983
International Order Inquiry

Product details

For chemical test results to be admissible in a drunk driving trial, the state must be able to show that statutory requirements were met. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota has significantly changed the landscape with regard to implied consent and criminal refusal statutes. This Emerging Issues Analysis examines the impact of that case on the admissibility of chemical test results.

Richard E. Erwin, Esq. is an author of Defense of Drunk Driving Cases Criminal-Civil, Third Edition, Volume 1.

Ask the LexisNexis experts - and get a complete answer based on today's law.

An authoritative analysis of important cases, codes, statutes, rulings, emerging issues or legal topics is available now - through LexisNexis Emerging Issues Analysis. The brain trust of LexisNexis authors - thousands of recognized authorities who develop the respected Matthew Bender®, Mealey's and Martindale-Hubbell® treatises and articles - produce this highly specific content. Each commentary covers an important case, code, statute, ruling or emerging issue such as subprime, nanotechnology, or climate change. More current and concentrated than treatises and more analytical than news, Emerging Issues Analysis bridges the information gap between the two, providing quick expert analysis of current developments in law.

Emerging Issues Analysis PDFs should be purchased individually.