tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post4993010806472481628..comments2024-03-15T04:02:42.341-04:00Comments on CrimLaw: The Great 2016 U.S. Supreme Court Freakout: DUI'sUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post-23948452230191424372017-02-07T20:36:26.521-05:002017-02-07T20:36:26.521-05:00Hi, Ken-
And then after Birchfield came the Virg...Hi, Ken- <br /><br />And then after Birchfield came the Virginia Court of Appeals's December 2016 Wolfe case. http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0058164.pdf <br /><br />Wolfe allows consent to give blood to be implied in DWI cases if the defendant does not state his or her refusal to be blood tested. However, blood tests being a Fourth Amendment search (see SCOTUS's McNeely v. Missouri, where McNeely affirmatively refused a blood test), one can only consent to a search by truly consenting, not by having an implied consent law that the driver does not know about and that the police hide from the defendant by not advising him or her about the implied consent law.<br /><br />I hope all is well. <br /><br />Jon KatzAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com