An attorney representing a man who underwent a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious and under suspicion of having driven while drunk told the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that police should have obtained a warrant before performing the test because implied consent did not extend to the incapacitated man.
But, Justice Max Baer said that argument may lead to a ridiculous result, since, unlike the conscious DUI suspect, the unconscious suspect would neither have to undergo the testing, nor be punished for refusing the test.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
