Matter of Sweeney v. Tofany

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Brooks

    27 Ohio St. 2d 66 (Ohio 1971)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that a change of mind within one half hour still constituted a refusal

    In Zidell v. Bright (1968), 264 Cal.App.2d 867, 71 Cal.Rptr. 111, the court held that it would be inconsistent with the purposes of the statute to hold that either the arresting officer or the officers on duty at the police station "were required to turn aside from their other responsibilities and arrange for administration of a belated test when once appellant had refused to submit after fair warning of the consequences." To the same effect, see Sweeney v. Tofany (1968), 56 Misc.2d 291, 288 N.Y. Supp. 2d 649; and Donahue v. Tofany (1969), 33 App. Div. 2d 590, 304 N.Y. Supp. 2d 484. Appellant also asserts, independent of the question of admissibility of a test for bodily substances taken within two hours, that a person shall not be deemed to have refused such a chemical test, within the meaning of R.C. 4511.191 (D), if he indicates his consent within a "reasonable time" of the request.

  2. Krueger v. Fulton

    169 N.W.2d 875 (Iowa 1969)   Cited 42 times
    In Krueger, a request for chemical testing was made thirty-five minutes after the plaintiff's arrest for OWI. 169 N.W.2d at 876.

    As appears from the above quotation thereof, the two-hour limitation is to qualify the results of the test for admission in evidence and not necessarily to confer additional privilege upon the defendant or to extend his rights in point of time. (Cf. Matter of Sowa v. Hults, 22 A.D.2d 730, 731, 253 N.Y.S.2d 294, 295); * * *." This quote is cited with approval in Sweeney v. Tofany, 56 Misc.2d 291, 288 N.Y.S.2d 649, 651. The court there states: "From these holdings we infer that a defendant's license must be revoked if his subsequent consent is not given in time for the test to be taken within two hours, but, with the two hours not being a matter of right to the defendant, his license may be revoked despite a subsequent consent short of that time."

  3. Bowman v. Mccullion

    21 Ohio App. 3d 138 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 7 times
    Indicating test would not be considered refused if motorist "almost immediately" retracts his or her refusal; each case would stand on its own facts in establishing whether retraction was "almost immediate"

    In Zidell v. Bright (1968), 264 Cal.App.2d 867, 71 Cal.Rptr. 111, the court held that it would be inconsistent with the purposes of the statute to hold that either the arresting officer or the officers on duty at the police station `were required to turn aside from their other responsibilities and arrange for administration of a belated test when once appellant had refused to submit after fair warning of the consequences.' To the same effect, see Sweeney v. Tofany (1968), 56 Misc.2d 291, 288 N.Y. Supp. 2d 649; and Donahue v. Tofany (1969), 33 App. Div. 2d 590, 304 N.Y. Supp. 2d 484."