Metzner v. State

14 Citing cases

  1. State v. Laub

    No. 22-1530 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024)

    "[P]roscribing the use of a search warrant as a means of obtaining evidence of a driver's intoxication 'would be to place allegedly drunken drivers in an exalted class of criminal defendants, protected by the law from every means of obtaining the most important evidence against them.'" Metzner v. State, 462 S.W.3d 650, 657 (Ark. 2015) (quoting Brown v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1001, 1007 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002)). "We conclude that the implied consent law is designed to facilitate, not impede, the gathering of chemical test evidence in order to remove drunk drivers from the roads.

  2. Wright v. Ark. Post-Prison Transfer Bd.

    2024 Ark. 173 (Ark. 2024)

    We will not interpret a statute, even a criminal one, so as to reach an absurd conclusion that is contrary to legislative intent. Metzner v. State, 2015 Ark. 222, 462 S.W.3d 650. The majority's refusal to consider the legal backdrop of Act 683 is a dereliction of its duty and a rejection of common sense.

  3. Tucker v. State

    2023 Ark. 69 (Ark. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Metzner v. State, 2015 Ark. 222, 462 S.W.3d 650. We construe the statute just as it reads; if the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion to resort to rules of statutory interpretation. Id.

  4. People v. Raider

    516 P.3d 911 (Colo. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    Beeman v. State , 86 S.W.3d 613, 615–16 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ; see also State v. Smith , 134 S.W.3d 35, 40 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (concluding that prohibition found in implied consent statute on forced blood draws did not extend to searches pursuant to a valid search warrant); Brown v. State , 774 N.E.2d 1001, 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (similarly concluding that implied consent law does not "preclude[ ] the use of a search warrant to obtain a blood sample after a request to submit to a chemical test has been refused"); Metzner v. State , 2015 Ark. 222, 462 S.W.3d 650, 656–57 (2015) (same); State v. Minett , 376 Mont. 260, 332 P.3d 235, 238 (2014) (same); State v. Stone , 229 W.Va. 271, 728 S.E.2d 155, 168 (2012) (same); State v. Zielke , 137 Wis.2d 39, 403 N.W.2d 427, 428 (1987) (same); State v. Evans , 378 P.3d 413, 420 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016) (same). ¶26 In sum, the Expressed Consent Statute's prohibition against forced specimen collection applies only to warrantless tests based on implied consent.

  5. State v. Mason

    2022 Ark. 47 (Ark. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Strict construction means narrow construction and requires that nothing be taken as intended that is not clearly expressed. Id. (citing Metzner v. State, 2015 Ark. 222, 462 S.W.3d 650). However, even a penal statute must not be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intent of the legislature.

  6. State v. Torres

    2021 Ark. 22 (Ark. 2021)   Cited 5 times

    Strict construction means narrow construction and requires that nothing be taken as intended that is not clearly expressed. Metzner v. State , 2015 Ark. 222, 462 S.W.3d 650. Additionally, in construing any statute, we place it beside other statutes relevant to the subject matter in question and ascribe meaning and effect to be derived from the whole.

  7. Smith v. State

    2020 Ark. 410 (Ark. 2020)   Cited 7 times

    Strict construction means narrow construction and requires that nothing be taken as intended that is not clearly expressed. Metzner v. State, 2015 Ark. 222, 462 S.W.3d 650. However, even a penal statute must not be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intent of the legislature.

  8. Commonwealth v. Bohigian

    486 Mass. 209 (Mass. 2020)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding BAC test results improperly were admitted where defendant did not consent to blood draw and remanding for new trial

    I would join with those courts construing the "no such test" language so as not to exclude test results obtained pursuant to a valid warrant. See, e.g., Britton v. State, 631 So. 2d 1073, 1076-1077 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) ; Metzner v. State, 2015 Ark. 222, at 10, 462 S.W.3d 650 ; State v. Smith, 134 S.W.3d 35, 40 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) ; Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613, 616-617 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ; State v. Stone, 229 W. Va. 271, 284, 728 S.E.2d 155 (2012). See also Brown v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1001, 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (noting statutory silence on question and concluding that "provisions of the implied consent law do not act either individually or collectively to prevent a law enforcement officer from obtaining a blood sample pursuant to a search warrant").

  9. Dortch v. State

    544 S.W.3d 518 (Ark. 2018)

    To determine whether penalties for refusal are criminal or civil, we need look to the text of the statute and the actual penalties imposed. Refusal results in suspension or revocation of driving privileges, Ark. Code Ann. § 5–65–205(b), and we have previously affirmed that evidence of an accused's refusal to submit to a chemical test can be properly admitted as circumstantial evidence showing a knowledge or consciousness of guilt, seeMetzner v. State , 2015 Ark. 222, at 6, 462 S.W.3d 650, 655. We have previously characterized these consequences as a civil sanction that does not rise to the level of criminal punishment.

  10. Dortch v. State

    2018 Ark. 135 (Ark. 2018)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a previous version of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-202 was unconstitutional as applied to Dortch

    To determine whether penalties for refusal are criminal or civil, we need look to the text of the statute and the actual penalties imposed. Refusal results in suspension or revocation of driving privileges, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-205(b), and we have previously affirmed that evidence of an accused's refusal to submit to a chemical test can be properly admitted as circumstantial evidence showing a knowledge or consciousness of guilt, see Metzner v. State, 2015 Ark. 222, at 6, 462 S.W.3d 650, 655. We have previously characterized these consequences as a civil sanction that does not rise to the level of criminal punishment.