From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McNamara v. City of Chicago

U.S.
Nov 9, 1998
525 U.S. 981 (1998)

Summary

holding that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendmetn when they failed to inform suspects arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) of their choice of alcohol tests, pursuant to California's implied consent statute. The court reasoned that suspects do not have to be advised of their Fourth Amendment rights, much less their statutory rights. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment did not require police officers to advise DUI suspects of their right to choose among breath, blood, or urine tests, even though the California statute required that arrestees be informed of these options.

Summary of this case from State v. Simpson

Opinion

No. 98-128.

November 9, 1998.


C.A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 138 F. 3d 1219.


Summaries of

McNamara v. City of Chicago

U.S.
Nov 9, 1998
525 U.S. 981 (1998)

holding that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendmetn when they failed to inform suspects arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) of their choice of alcohol tests, pursuant to California's implied consent statute. The court reasoned that suspects do not have to be advised of their Fourth Amendment rights, much less their statutory rights. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment did not require police officers to advise DUI suspects of their right to choose among breath, blood, or urine tests, even though the California statute required that arrestees be informed of these options.

Summary of this case from State v. Simpson
Case details for

McNamara v. City of Chicago

Case Details

Full title:McNAMARA ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Nov 9, 1998

Citations

525 U.S. 981 (1998)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Layne

Id., at 119 (opinion of Murnaghan, J.) Recognizing a split among the Circuits on this issue, we granted…

State v. Ravotto

Other courts have reasoned similarly. See, e.g., Nelson v. City ofIrvine, 143 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir.)…