holding that state’s implied consent law applies to any person, including juveniles, who drives a vehicle in the state
How later courts described this case
- holding that state’s implied consent law applies to any person, including juveniles, who drives a vehicle in the state
- upholding implied consent law as valid exercise of state’s police powers, holding that “the breathalyzer test is a reasonable means for achieving the goals of the legislature____ [and] ... it is also reasonable to suspend the driver’s license of a person who refuses to submit to the tests”
- finding “no merit” to the argument that Arizona’s implied consent law violates the Fourth Amendment
- holding that “suspension proceedings under [Arizona’s] Implied Consent Law are civil in nature”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HENRY S. STEVENS, Judge,
Court of Appeals (specially concurring) :
I concur except that it is my opinion that the court should disapprove the use of the refusal to take the test in criminal actions, thus negating the words “or criminal” in A.R.S. § 28-692, subsec. H.
CAMERON, J., concurs.
The Honorable FRED C. STRUCKMEYER, Chief Justice, having disqualified himself from participating in the determination of this case, the Honorable HENRY S. STEVENS, Judge of the Court of Appeals, was called in to sit in his stead.