South Dakota v. Neville.
The case had to do with South Dakota's practice of using one's refusal to take a blood alcohol test as evidence of DUI. The court ruled that introducing the refusal as evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment, because it is not oral testimony and thus not self-incriminating. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that not warning the defendant that his refusal could be used as evidence against him at trial was not violative of due process because the warnings provided by the officer did not assure the defendant that he would be subject to no other consequences than those mentioned.
Many courts see the refusal to take DUI tests as circumstantial evidence as to guilt. Other situations like that are fleeing custody or suppressing/destroying evidence.
Tomorrow the next case will be summarized. Remember DUI's are serious crimes, and with it you need serious protection. Cases of these type have gone up to the United States Supreme Court. Your rights are important.
The case had to do with South Dakota's practice of using one's refusal to take a blood alcohol test as evidence of DUI. The court ruled that introducing the refusal as evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment, because it is not oral testimony and thus not self-incriminating. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that not warning the defendant that his refusal could be used as evidence against him at trial was not violative of due process because the warnings provided by the officer did not assure the defendant that he would be subject to no other consequences than those mentioned.
Many courts see the refusal to take DUI tests as circumstantial evidence as to guilt. Other situations like that are fleeing custody or suppressing/destroying evidence.
Tomorrow the next case will be summarized. Remember DUI's are serious crimes, and with it you need serious protection. Cases of these type have gone up to the United States Supreme Court. Your rights are important.