Missouri v. McNeely and implied consent

Asked over 1 year ago - Fullerton, CA

I was arrest at a dui check point on 5/3, performed several FST that I turley believe I passed with flying colors (received discovery from the DMV and no field test results were included) was really pushed by officer towards taking a blood test (stating to his partner "do we even have the breath test" then asked what I wanted to do) I asked the officer what would happen if I refused (which I was never planning on doing but the way he was handling me seemed very shady) he stated I signed a implied consent with the DMV and If I refused I would automatically loose my license. Long story long I took the blood test and it came back 0.10 Can or does the Missouri v. McNeely ruling apply to me in any way? For instance being told of a serious consicuance if I exercised my right to refuse a bloodte

Attorney answers (4)

  1. John M. Kaman

    Pro

    Contributor Level 20

    5

    Lawyers agree

    Answered . As I understand McNeely the case does not eliminate your implied consent to a chemical test. So if the record of what happens looks like a refusal you will lose your license for a year in addition to the possible DUI penalties. McNeely focuses on whether the cops can take a blood draw without a search warrant. The case does not answer the question yes or no but does require an analysis of whether it would have been feasible to get the search warrant before the draw. Often warrants can be obtained in a very short time, and depending on all the facts and circumstances the cops may have had an obligation to seek one before the draw. Bottom line is that you may lose on the refusal but prevail on the DUI unless the cops can show there was no way they could have obtained a warrant.

  2. Tai Christopher Bogan

    Pro

    Contributor Level 18

    5

    Lawyers agree

    Answered . The McNeely ruling can apply to your case facts. Implied consent is not really consent in the constitutional sense. Hire a lawyer who knows about how to leverage your case and file the proper motions related to consent for the blood test.

    The above information does not establish an attorney client relationship nor is it meant to provide legal advice.
  3. Douglas Troy Kans

    Pro

    Contributor Level 10

    5

    Lawyers agree

    Answered . In Minnesota, we are rather unique in the sense that refusing to submit to chemical testing is a crime. So in essence, drivers are being read an implied consent advisory telling them it is a crime to refuse the test. So, this is a big issue here in this state. Don't know if that is the case in California. Anyway, I've attached a link of an article our firm wrote about the Mcneely decision and its potential impact. I hope it helps. Good Luck!

    In no way am I offering you legal advice, and in no way has my comment created an attorney-client relationship.... more
  4. Alexander M. Ivakhnenko

    Contributor Level 20

    3

    Lawyers agree

    Answered . You made an impressive personal effort learning of possibly applicable traffic case law for your California DUI case,. However, even if you legally accurate, the case still requires a good traffic attorney licensed in California to evaluate your case for its weak and strong points to determine the best course of action and then to advance them in court properly, with well- crafted legal arguments and Motions.
    I do not know a single successful quasi-criminal case (which covers DUI charges) that benefitted a pro bono defendant better than assistance by a competent legal professional. Yet, you are welcome to try.

    DISCLAIMER The answer given above by the lawyer serves for educational purposes only and provides general... more

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask a Lawyer

Get free answers from experienced attorneys.

 

Ask now

28,752 answers this week

3,080 attorneys answering

Ask a Lawyer

Get answers from top-rated lawyers.

  • It's FREE
  • It's easy
  • It's anonymous

28,752 answers this week

3,080 attorneys answering