Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

Implied consent is valid, and the need for advice as to consequences serves a purpose beyond consent

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

Implied consent is valid. The need for advice as to consequences serves a purpose beyond consent. State v. Dewitt, 2008 Ida. App. LEXIS 42 (April 29, 2008): Informing a suspect about the consequences of refusing an evidentiary test is not intended to be an opportunity for a defendant to withdraw his consent; rather, it is an administrative tool designed to increase the likelihood that the suspect will peaceably submit to testing that he has no legal right to refuse. Even if the officer did not notify the defendant of the consequences of the refusal as required by I.C. § 18-8002(3), the results of the evidentiary test are admissible in a criminal prosecution. State v. Harmon, 131 Idaho 80, 85, 952 P.2d 402, 407 (Ct. App. 1998). Plaintiff knew or should have known he had been subjected to a search by a date certain, so his civil case was barred by the statute of limitations...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on May 02, 2008 (boomark / email).