Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After being arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII), Defendant was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant elected to take a breath test, which resulted in a breath alcohol content reading above the legal limit. Defendant moved to suppress the breath test results, arguing that he did not voluntarily consent to breath testing. The district court denied the motion and convicted Defendant of OVUII. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and therefore, the district court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the breath test result. View "State v. Bayudan " on Justia Law

After being arrested for OVUII, Defendant was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. After being informed of the sanctions for refusal, Defendant elected to take a blood test, which resulted in a blood alcohol reading above the legal limit. Defendant was ultimately convicted of OVUII. The Intermediate Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s blood test was the product of a warrantless search, and accordingly, Defendant’s conviction could not be upheld. View "State v. Elberson " on Justia Law

After being arrested for OVUII, Defendant was read an implied consent form. Defendant elected to take a blood test, which resulted in a blood alcohol reading above the legal limit. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the blood test results, arguing that the results were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Defendant was convicted of OVUII. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s blood test was the product of a warrantless search, and accordingly, Defendant’s conviction could not be upheld. View "State v. Reilly " on Justia Law

After being arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) Defendant was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant elected to take a breath test, which resulted in a breath alcohol content reading above the legal limit. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the breath test results. The district court denied the motion to suppress. Thereafter, Defendant was convicted of OVUII. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and therefore, Defendant’s OVUII conviction could not be upheld. Remanded. View "State v. Shigemura " on Justia Law

After being arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) Defendant was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant subsequently elected to take a breath test, which resulted in a breath alcohol content reading above the legal limit. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the breath test results. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, and Defendant was convicted of OVUII. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and therefore, Defendant’s OVUII conviction could not be upheld. View "State v. Kernstock " on Justia Law

After being arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) Defendant was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. The consent form conveyed a threat of imprisonment and punishment for refusal to submit to a breath test. Defendant subsequently elected to take a breath test, which resulted in a breath alcohol content reading above the legal limit. Defendant filed motions to suppress evidence of his breath test, arguing that he did not constitutionally consent to the breath test because his consent was coerced by the implied consent form. The district court denied Defendant’s motions to suppress. Defendant was convicted of OVUII. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and therefore, Defendant’s OVUII conviction could not stand. View "State v. Mikawa " on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII). Defendant appealed, arguing (1) his Miranda rights and statutory right to counsel were violated when, after being taken into custody, where he was asked without Miranda warnings if he wanted to refuse to take a blood alcohol test; and (2) the district court improperly allowed the State to amend its complaint to alleged the requisite mens rea for the charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) insofar as the charge was properly amended and Defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, his OVUII conviction still stands; and (2) the district court properly permitted the State to amend Defendant’s charge to allege mens rea. View "State v. Kiyuna " on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) and was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant chose to take a breath test, which resulted in an elevated breath alcohol content reading. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the breath test result, arguing that his consent was coerced by the implied consent form. The motion to suppress was denied, and Defendant was adjudged guilty of OVUII. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search. Remanded. View "State v. Richardson " on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant and taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant elected to take a breath test, which resulted in an elevated breath alcohol content reading. Defendant moved to suppress the breath test results, arguing that his Miranda rights were violated when he was asked, without Miranda warnings, if he wanted to refuse to take a blood alcohol test and that his statutory right to an attorney was violated. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Defendant was convicted. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search. Remanded. View "State v. Ling " on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant and taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant elected to take a breath test. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the breath test results, arguing that his Miranda rights were violated when he was asked by the police, without Miranda warnings, if he wanted to refuse to take a blood alcohol test and that his right to an attorney was violated. The motion was denied, and Defendant was convicted. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and the ICA erred by concluding that the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the breath test result. View "State v. Sailola " on Justia Law