HIGH COURT ALLOWS BLOOD TEST REFUSAL AS PROOF OF DWI

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a driver's refusal to agree to a blood alcohol test may be used as evidence toward proving a charge of driving while intoxicated. The 7-2 decision, in "South Dakota V. Neville" held that use in court of one driver's refusal to take a blood alcohol test does not violate Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The court also ruled that a driver, upon being apprehended under suspicion of driving while intoxicated, does not have a constitutional right to be advised that refusal of the test is admissible toward determination of guilt.

• Availability:
  • Find a library where document is available. Order URL: http://worldcat.org/issn/00412538
• Corporate Authors:

  Association of Trial Lawyers of America

  1050 31st Street, NW
  Washington, DC  United States  20007
• Publication Date: 1983-6

Media Info

• Pagination: p. 13-14
• Serial:
  • Trial
  • Volume: 19
  • Issue Number: 6
  • Publisher: Association of Trial Lawyers of America
  • ISSN: 0041-2538

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Blood analysis; Driver licenses; Drunk driving; Evidence; Implied consent laws; Legal action; Legislation; Proof; Prosecution; Suspensions
• Uncontrolled Terms: Driver license suspension; Implied consent
• Old TRIS Terms: Blood tests; Refusal
• Subject Areas: Highways; Law; Safety and Human Factors; Security and Emergencies; I83: Accidents and the Human Factor;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 00385599
• Record Type: Publication
• Source Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• Report/Paper Numbers: HS-035 876
• Files: HSL, TRIS, USDOT
• Created Date: May 30 1984 12:00AM