Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation (or in some cases, by a person's silence or inaction). For example, if a person is unconscious as a result of injuries sustained during a traffic collision, medical treatment may be provided to that person, despite the unconscious person being unable to expressly grant consent for that treatment.
Driving while intoxicated
All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given their implied consent to a certified breathalyzer or by a blood sample by their choice, or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration. Implied consent laws may result in punishment for those who refuse to cooperate with blood alcohol testing after an arrest for suspected impaired driving, including civil consequences such as a driver's license suspension. In 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States in Birchfield v. North Dakota held that both breath tests and blood tests constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, concluding that requiring breath tests is constitutional without a search warrant, however, requiring more intrusive blood tests involving piercing the skin is not, as the goal of traffic safety can be obtained by less invasive means. Specifically addressing implied consent laws, the court in the Birchfield opinion stated that while their "prior opinions have referred approvingly to the general concept of implied-consent laws" that "there must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists may be deemed to have consented by virtue of a decision to drive on public roads" and "that motorists could be deemed to have consented to only those conditions that are 'reasonable' in that they have a 'nexus' to the privilege of driving". In 2016, People v. Arredondo, the California Courts of appeals debated whether authorities could seize an unwarranted blood sample from an unconscious person suspected of driving under the influence without offending the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches or seizures. The court ruled that the defendant "consented to such a search in advance solely by operation of the statute in California, which declares that anyone who drives a vehicle in this state is "deemed to have given his or her consent" to blood alcohol testing under specified conditions. Though Arredondo was unconscious at the time his blood was drawn, the court found that the "warrantless search was justified on the consent since California's "implied consent" law states "one who drives a motor vehicle in this state is 'deemed' to consent to blood alcohol testing". Moreover, the court ruled that the extraction was justified by "exigent circumstances, statutorily implied consent, the officer's belief that the extraction was lawful in light of long-standing practice under prior case law and good faith reliance on the implied consent statute". In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States in Schmerber v. California held that a warrantless blood sample is justified under the Fourth Amendment's pressing circumstances because alcohol in one's blood would be diminished by the body's natural metabolic system if officers were to wait for a warrant. The Fifth Amendment only applies to interrogation and testimony and does not prohibit blood tests. The case resulted in a conviction because it was decided that blood test results do not constitute testimony, proof of a confession or any other communicative acts.
Non-evidential testing In the United States, implied consent laws generally do not apply to Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) testing (small handheld devices, as opposed to evidential breath test devices). For a handheld field breath tester to be used as evidential breath testing, the device must be properly certified and calibrated, evidential procedures must be followed, and it may be necessary to administer an "implied consent" warning to the suspect prior to testing. In most US jurisdictions, participation in a PBT test is voluntary; however for some violations, such as refusals by commercial drivers or by drivers under 21 years of age, some US jurisdictions may impose implied consent consequences for a PBT refusal. For example, the state of Michigan has a roadside PBT law that requires a motorist provide a preliminary breath test; however, for non-commercial drivers Michigan's penalties are limited to a "civil infraction" penalty, with no violation "points". Participation in "field sobriety tests" (FSTs or SFSTs) is voluntary in the US.
Sexual assault
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
