This website uses cookies

We use cookies to enhance your experience and support COUNTER Metrics for transparent reporting of readership statistics. Cookie data is not sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Skip to main content
null
Gonzaga Law Review
  • Menu
  • Articles
    • General
    • All
  • For Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • About
  • Issues
  • search
  • Facebook (opens in a new tab)
  • LinkedIn (opens in a new tab)
  • RSS feed (opens a modal with a link to feed)

RSS Feed

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

http://localhost:14330/feed
ISSN 0046-6115
General
Vol. 21, Issue 3, 1986July 16, 2020 PDT

Evidence of a Defendant’s Refusal to Submit to a Breathalyzer Test is Admissible Only For the Purpose of Controverting a Contention Raised by the Defendant. State v. Zwicker, 105 Wn.2d 228, 713 P.2d 1101 (1986)

Steve Brooks,
evidencetraffic stopbreathalyzercriminal procedure
Photo by Arisa Chattasa on Unsplash
Gonzaga Law Review
Steve Brooks, Evidence of a Defendant’s Refusal to Submit to a Breathalyzer Test Is Admissible Only For the Purpose of Controverting a Contention Raised by the Defendant. State v. Zwicker, 105 Wn.2d 228, 713 P.2d 1101 (1986), 21 Gonzaga Law Review 819 (2020).

View more stats

Powered by Scholastica, the modern academic journal management system