south
dakota
neville
argued
december
decided
february
south
dakota
statute
permits
person
suspected
driving
intoxicated
refuse
submit
test
authorizes
revocation
driver
license
person
refusing
test
permits
refusal
used
trial
respondent
arrested
police
officers
south
dakota
driving
intoxicated
officers
asked
submit
test
warned
lose
license
refused
warn
refusal
used
trial
respondent
refused
take
test
south
dakota
trial
granted
respondent
motion
suppress
evidence
refusal
take
test
south
dakota
affirmed
ground
statute
allowing
introduction
evidence
refusal
violated
privilege
held
admission
evidence
defendant
refusal
submit
test
offend
fifth
amendment
right
refusal
take
test
police
officer
lawfully
requested
act
coerced
officer
thus
protected
privilege
offer
taking
test
clearly
legitimate
becomes
less
legitimate
state
offers
second
option
refusing
test
attendant
penalties
making
choice
pp
fundamentally
unfair
violation
due
process
use
respondent
refusal
take
test
evidence
guilt
even
though
police
failed
warn
refusal
used
trial
doyle
ohio
distinguished
failure
warn
sort
implicit
promise
forgo
use
evidence
unfairly
trick
respondent
evidence
later
offered
trial
pp
delivered
opinion
burger
brennan
white
blackmun
powell
rehnquist
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
marshall
joined
post
mark
meierhenry
attorney
general
south
dakota
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
mark
smith
assistant
attorney
general
david
gienapp
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondent
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
state
indiana
et
al
linley
pearson
attorney
general
indiana
palmer
ward
deputy
attorney
general
donald
bouton
acting
attorney
general
virgin
islands
attorneys
general
respective
follows
charles
graddick
alabama
wilson
condon
alaska
jim
smith
florida
tany
hong
hawaii
tyrone
fahner
illinois
robert
stephan
kansas
william
guste
louisiana
james
tierney
maine
warren
spannaus
minnesota
john
ashcroft
missouri
michael
greeley
montana
robert
abrams
new
york
rufus
edmisten
north
carolina
william
brown
ohio
david
frohnmayer
oregon
leroy
zimmerman
pennsylvania
daniel
mcleod
south
carolina
william
leech
tennessee
john
easton
vermont
chauncey
browning
west
virginia
bronson
la
follette
wisconsin
steven
freudenthal
wyoming
mothers
drunk
drivers
hartley
hansen
texas
district
county
attorneys
association
et
al
david
crump
justice
delivered
opinion
schmerber
california
held
state
force
defendant
submit
test
without
violating
defendant
fifth
amendment
right
address
question
left
open
schmerber
supra
hold
admission
evidence
defendant
refusal
submit
test
likewise
offend
right
two
madison
south
dakota
police
officers
stopped
respondent
car
saw
fail
stop
stop
sign
officers
asked
respondent
driver
license
asked
get
car
left
car
respondent
staggered
fell
car
support
officers
smelled
alcohol
breath
respondent
driver
license
informed
officers
revoked
previous
conviction
officers
asked
respondent
touch
finger
nose
walk
straight
line
respondent
failed
field
sobriety
tests
placed
arrest
read
miranda
rights
respondent
acknowledged
understood
rights
agreed
talk
without
lawyer
present
app
reading
printed
card
officers
asked
respondent
submit
test
warned
lose
license
refused
respondent
refused
take
test
stating
drunk
wo
pass
test
officers
read
request
submit
test
took
respondent
police
station
read
request
submit
third
time
respondent
continued
refuse
take
test
saying
drunk
pass
south
dakota
law
specifically
declares
refusal
submit
test
may
admissible
evidence
trial
comp
laws
ann
supp
nevertheless
respondent
sought
suppress
evidence
refusal
take
test
circuit
granted
suppression
motion
three
reasons
south
dakota
statute
allowing
evidence
refusal
violated
respondent
federal
constitutional
rights
officers
failed
advise
respondent
refusal
used
trial
refusal
irrelevant
issues
state
appealed
entire
order
south
dakota
affirmed
suppression
act
refusal
grounds
allows
introduction
evidence
violated
federal
state
privilege
reasoned
refusal
communicative
act
involving
respondent
testimonial
capacities
state
compelled
communication
forcing
respondent
choose
submitting
perhaps
unpleasant
examination
producing
testimonial
evidence
quoting
state
andrews
cert
denied
since
jurisdictions
found
fifth
amendment
violation
admission
evidence
refusal
submit
tests
granted
certiorari
resolve
conflict
ii
situation
underlying
case
drunk
driver
occurs
tragic
frequency
nation
highways
carnage
caused
drunk
drivers
well
documented
needs
detailed
recitation
although
daily
contact
problem
state
courts
repeatedly
lamented
tragedy
see
breithaupt
abram
increasing
slaughter
highways
avoidable
reaches
astounding
figures
heard
battlefield
tate
short
blackmun
concurring
deploring
traffic
irresponsibility
frightful
carnage
spews
upon
highways
perez
campbell
blackmun
concurring
omitted
slaughter
highways
nation
exceeds
death
toll
wars
mackey
montrym
recognizing
compelling
interest
highway
safety
part
program
deter
drinkers
driving
south
dakota
enacted
implied
consent
law
comp
laws
ann
supp
statute
declares
person
operating
vehicle
south
dakota
deemed
consented
chemical
test
alcoholic
content
blood
arrested
driving
intoxicated
schmerber
california
upheld
blood
test
claim
infringed
fifth
amendment
right
made
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
recognized
coerced
blood
test
infringed
degree
inviolability
human
personality
requirement
state
procure
evidence
accused
independent
labors
noted
privilege
never
given
full
scope
suggested
values
helps
protect
therefore
held
privilege
bars
state
compelling
communications
testimony
since
blood
test
physical
real
evidence
rather
testimonial
evidence
found
unprotected
fifth
amendment
privilege
schmerber
clearly
allows
state
force
person
suspected
driving
intoxicated
submit
test
south
dakota
however
declined
authorize
police
officers
administer
test
suspect
rather
avoid
violent
confrontations
south
dakota
statute
permits
suspect
refuse
test
indeed
requires
police
officers
inform
suspect
right
refuse
comp
laws
ann
supp
permission
without
price
however
south
dakota
law
authorizes
department
public
safety
providing
person
refused
test
opportunity
hearing
revoke
one
year
person
license
drive
nonresident
operating
privileges
may
possess
penalty
refusing
take
test
unquestionably
legitimate
assuming
appropriate
procedural
protections
see
mackey
montrym
supra
south
dakota
discourages
choice
refusal
allowing
refusal
used
defendant
trial
comp
laws
ann
supp
schmerber
expressly
reserved
question
whether
evidence
refusal
violated
privilege
indicate
general
fifth
amendment
principles
rather
particular
holding
griffin
california
control
inquiry
courts
applying
general
fifth
amendment
principles
refusal
take
blood
test
found
violation
privilege
many
courts
following
lead
justice
traynor
opinion
california
people
sudduth
cal
cert
denied
reasoned
refusal
submit
physical
act
rather
communication
reason
protected
privilege
justice
traynor
explained
fully
companion
case
people
ellis
cal
refusal
display
voice
testimonial
evidence
refusal
take
potentially
incriminating
test
similar
circumstantial
evidence
consciousness
guilt
escape
custody
suppression
evidence
relying
dudley
state
tex
crim
app
state
andrews
cert
denied
rejected
view
minority
view
emphasizes
refusal
tacit
overt
expression
communication
defendant
thoughts
constitution
simply
forbids
compulsory
revealing
communication
accused
person
thoughts
mental
processes
whether
acts
failure
act
words
spoken
failure
speak
dudley
supra
find
considerable
force
analogies
flight
suppression
evidence
suggested
justice
traynor
decline
rest
decision
ground
recognized
schmerber
distinction
real
physical
evidence
one
hand
communications
testimony
readily
drawn
many
cases
situations
arising
refusal
present
difficult
gradation
person
indicates
refusal
complete
inaction
one
nods
head
negatively
one
refuse
take
test
respondent
stated
drunk
wo
pass
test
since
impermissible
coercion
involved
suspect
refuses
submit
take
test
regardless
form
refusal
prefer
rest
decision
ground
draw
possible
distinctions
necessary
decision
circumstances
stated
fisher
held
repeatedly
fifth
amendment
limited
prohibiting
use
physical
moral
compulsion
exerted
person
asserting
privilege
coercion
requirement
comes
directly
constitutional
language
directing
person
shall
compelled
criminal
case
witness
amdt
emphasis
added
professor
levy
concluded
history
privilege
element
compulsion
involuntariness
always
ingredient
right
right
existed
protests
incriminating
interrogatories
levy
origins
fifth
amendment
state
directly
compel
respondent
refuse
test
gave
choice
submitting
test
refusing
course
fact
government
gives
defendant
suspect
choice
always
resolve
compulsion
inquiry
classic
fifth
amendment
violation
telling
defendant
trial
testify
extreme
view
compel
defendant
incriminate
submit
testify
falsely
risking
perjury
decline
testify
risking
contempt
long
recognized
fifth
amendment
prevents
state
forcing
choice
cruel
trilemma
defendant
see
murphy
waterfront
see
also
new
jersey
portash
telling
witness
grant
legislative
immunity
testify
face
contempt
sanctions
essence
coerced
testimony
similarly
schmerber
cautioned
fifth
amendment
may
bar
use
testimony
obtained
proffered
alternative
submit
test
painful
dangerous
severe
violative
religious
beliefs
almost
inevitably
person
prefer
confession
cf
miranda
arizona
unless
compulsion
inherent
custodial
surroundings
dispelled
statement
truly
product
free
choice
contrast
prohibited
choices
values
behind
fifth
amendment
hindered
state
offers
suspect
choice
submitting
test
refusal
used
simple
test
safe
painless
commonplace
see
schmerber
respondent
concedes
must
state
legitimately
compel
suspect
accede
test
given
offer
taking
test
clearly
legitimate
action
becomes
less
legitimate
state
offers
second
option
refusing
test
attendant
penalties
making
choice
case
state
subtly
coerced
respondent
choosing
option
right
compel
rather
offering
true
choice
contrary
state
wants
respondent
choose
take
test
inference
intoxication
arising
positive
test
far
stronger
arising
refusal
take
test
recognize
course
choice
submit
refuse
take
test
easy
pleasant
one
suspect
make
criminal
process
often
requires
suspects
defendants
make
difficult
choices
see
crampton
ohio
decided
mcgautha
california
hold
therefore
refusal
take
test
police
officer
lawfully
requested
act
coerced
officer
thus
protected
privilege
iii
relying
doyle
ohio
respondent
also
suggests
admission
trial
refusal
violates
due
process
clause
respondent
fully
warned
consequences
refusal
doyle
held
due
process
clause
prohibits
prosecutor
using
defendant
silence
miranda
warnings
impeach
testimony
trial
term
hale
determined
supervisory
power
federal
courts
use
silence
impeachment
dubious
probative
value
although
doyle
mentioned
rationale
applying
rule
relied
fundamental
unfairness
implicitly
assuring
suspect
silence
used
using
silence
impeach
explanation
subsequently
offered
trial
unlike
situation
doyle
think
fundamentally
unfair
south
dakota
use
refusal
take
test
evidence
guilt
even
though
respondent
specifically
warned
refusal
used
trial
first
right
silence
underlying
miranda
warnings
one
constitutional
dimension
thus
unduly
burdened
see
miranda
supra
cf
fletcher
weir
postarrest
silence
without
miranda
warnings
may
used
impeach
trial
testimony
respondent
right
refuse
test
contrast
simply
matter
grace
bestowed
south
dakota
legislature
moreover
miranda
warnings
emphasize
dangers
choosing
speak
whatever
say
used
evidence
give
warning
adverse
consequences
choosing
remain
silent
imbalance
delivery
miranda
warnings
recognized
doyle
implicitly
assures
suspect
silence
used
warnings
challenged
contrast
contained
misleading
implicit
assurances
relative
consequences
choice
officers
explained
respondent
chose
submit
test
right
know
results
choose
take
additional
test
person
chosen
officers
specifically
warn
respondent
test
results
used
trial
explaining
consequences
option
officers
specifically
warned
respondent
failure
take
test
lead
loss
driving
privileges
one
year
true
officers
inform
respondent
consequence
evidence
refusal
used
think
unrealistic
say
warnings
given
implicitly
assure
suspect
consequences
mentioned
occur
importantly
warning
lose
driver
license
made
clear
refusing
test
safe
harbor
free
adverse
consequences
state
actually
warn
respondent
test
results
used
hold
failure
warn
sort
implicit
promise
forgo
use
evidence
unfairly
trick
respondent
evidence
later
offered
trial
therefore
conclude
use
evidence
refusal
warnings
comported
fundamental
fairness
required
due
process
iv
judgment
south
dakota
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
card
read
arrested
driving
actual
physical
control
vehicle
influence
alcohol
drugs
violation
request
submit
chemical
test
blood
determine
blood
alcohol
concentration
right
refuse
submit
test
refuse
test
given
right
chemical
test
person
choosing
expense
addition
test
requested
right
know
results
chemical
test
refuse
test
requested
driver
license
driving
privilege
may
revoked
one
year
opportunity
appear
hearing
officer
determine
driver
license
driving
privilege
shall
revoked
driver
license
driving
privileges
revoked
hearing
officer
right
appeal
circuit
understand
told
wish
submit
chemical
test
requested
app
responding
questions
respondent
informed
officers
drinking
close
one
case
home
last
drink
ten
minutes
ago
tr
preliminary
hearing
south
dakota
comp
laws
ann
supp
likewise
declares
notwithstanding
general
rule
south
dakota
claim
privilege
proper
subject
comment
judge
counsel
evidence
refusal
submit
chemical
analysis
blood
urine
breath
bodily
substance
admissible
evidence
trial
driving
influence
alcohol
person
may
claim
privilege
regard
admission
refusal
submit
chemical
analysis
ibid
justice
stevens
emphasizes
post
south
dakota
clearly
held
statute
violated
state
well
federal
constitution
although
adequate
state
ground
decision
read
opinion
resting
independent
state
ground
rather
think
determined
admission
evidence
violated
fifth
amendment
privilege
concluded
without
analysis
state
privilege
violated
well
reaching
holding
first
analyzed
decisions
schmerber
california
miranda
arizona
supra
described
issue
review
determine
whether
fifth
amendment
privilege
applies
refusal
evidence
emphasis
added
later
asked
whether
testimonial
evidence
compelled
purposes
applying
fifth
amendment
standard
emphasis
added
cases
relied
resolve
issues
analyze
federal
privilege
analysis
remarkably
similar
opinion
reviewed
delaware
prouse
opinion
analyzed
various
decisions
interpreting
federal
constitution
concluded
fourth
amendment
violated
police
procedure
issue
summarily
held
state
constitution
therefore
also
infringed
characterized
analysis
every
police
practice
found
violate
fourth
amendment
without
analysis
held
contrary
state
constitution
well
situation
concluded
jurisdiction
review
federal
constitutional
issue
decided
justice
stevens
expressing
general
dissatisfaction
prouse
attempts
distinguish
noting
state
said
state
federal
constitutions
substantially
similar
violation
latter
necessarily
violation
former
post
south
dakota
made
virtually
identical
statements
recognized
textual
difference
federal
state
constitutional
privileges
noted
schmerber
interpreted
fifth
amendment
prohibition
light
liberal
definition
evidence
used
state
constitution
therefore
concluded
ince
fifth
amendment
constitution
broad
enough
exclude
evidence
need
draw
distinction
time
const
art
vi
fifth
amendment
constitution
ibid
stated
clearly
simply
assumed
violation
fifth
amendment
privilege
also
violated
without
analysis
state
privilege
precisely
reasoning
found
sufficient
prouse
give
us
jurisdiction
hear
case
decide
federal
constitutional
issue
south
dakota
also
remanded
determination
whether
respondent
statement
drunk
pass
test
made
voluntary
waiver
right
remain
silent
yet
course
final
judgment
case
nevertheless
jurisdiction
review
federal
constitutional
issue
finally
determined
state
ultimately
prevails
trial
federal
issue
mooted
state
loses
trial
governing
state
law
comp
laws
ann
prevents
presenting
federal
claim
review
see
california
stewart
decided
miranda
arizona
cox
broadcasting
cohn
see
cases
cited
nn
infra
schmerber
also
rejected
arguments
coerced
blood
test
violated
right
due
process
right
counsel
prohibition
unreasonable
searches
seizures
schmerber
caution
due
process
concerns
involved
police
initiated
physical
violence
administering
test
refused
respect
reasonable
request
undergo
different
form
testing
responded
resistance
inappropriate
force
griffin
held
prosecutor
trial
comments
defendant
refusal
take
witness
stand
impermissibly
burdened
defendant
fifth
amendment
right
refuse
unlike
defendant
situation
griffin
person
suspected
drunk
driving
constitutional
right
refuse
take
test
specific
rule
griffin
thus
inapplicable
see
newhouse
misterly
hill
state
campbell
superior
state
haze
refusal
give
handwriting
exemplar
city
westerville
cunningham
ohio
schmerber
pointed
lie
detector
test
example
evidence
difficult
characterize
testimonial
real
even
though
test
may
seek
obtain
physical
evidence
reasoned
compel
person
submit
testing
evoke
spirit
history
fifth
amendment
see
also
people
ellis
cal
analyzing
lie
detector
tests
within
fifth
amendment
privilege
second
example
seemingly
physical
evidence
nevertheless
invokes
fifth
amendment
protection
presented
estelle
smith
held
fifth
amendment
privilege
protected
compelled
disclosures
psychiatric
examination
specifically
rejected
claim
psychiatrist
observing
patient
communications
simply
infer
facts
mind
rather
examine
truth
patient
statements
many
courts
found
problem
ground
coercion
analytically
related
ground
state
compel
submission
test
qualify
right
refuse
test
see
welch
district
state
meints
neb
state
gardner
app
state
brean
nothing
record
suggests
respondent
made
sustain
claim
case
context
arrest
driving
intoxicated
police
inquiry
whether
suspect
take
test
interrogation
within
meaning
miranda
stated
rhode
island
innis
police
words
actions
normally
attendant
arrest
custody
constitute
interrogation
police
inquiry
highly
regulated
state
law
presented
virtually
words
suspects
similar
police
request
submit
fingerprinting
photography
respondent
choice
refusal
thus
enjoys
prophylactic
miranda
protection
outside
basic
fifth
amendment
protection
see
generally
arenella
schmerber
privilege
reappraisal
crim
rev
even
though
officers
specifically
advise
respondent
test
results
used
one
seriously
contend
failure
warn
make
test
results
inadmissible
respondent
chosen
submit
test
cf
schneckloth
bustamonte
knowledge
right
refuse
essential
part
proving
effective
consent
search
since
state
wants
suspect
submit
test
interest
fully
warn
suspects
consequences
refusal
informed
police
officers
south
dakota
warn
suspects
evidence
refusal
used
tr
oral
arg
justice
stevens
justice
marshall
joins
dissenting
understandably
anxious
part
curtailing
carnage
caused
drunk
drivers
ante
sympathize
concern
justify
rendition
advisory
opinion
constitutional
issue
case
power
reverse
judgment
south
dakota
decision
rests
adequate
independent
state
ground
therefore
join
opinion
south
dakota
framed
question
appeal
whether
sdcl
violation
neville
federal
state
constitutional
privilege
const
amend
const
art
vi
analyzing
federal
state
cases
south
dakota
concluded
hold
evidence
accused
refusal
take
blood
test
violates
federal
state
privilege
therefore
sdcl
unconstitutional
given
existence
adequate
state
ground
established
beyond
dispute
may
take
jurisdiction
state
ground
independent
case
lack
jurisdiction
south
dakota
indicated
explicitly
implicitly
construction
art
vi
south
dakota
constitution
contingent
agreement
interpretation
fifth
amendment
constitution
general
presumption
federal
law
general
presumption
state
law
specific
language
opinion
suggest
south
dakota
harbored
opinion
unless
explicit
notice
provision
state
constitution
intended
mere
shadow
comparable
provision
federal
constitution
presumptuous
paternalistic
make
assumption
matter
eloquent
persuasive
analysis
federal
constitution
may
simply
presume
highest
sovereign
state
modify
interpretation
law
whenever
interpret
comparable
federal
law
differently
even
state
tribunal
misconceives
federal
law
vacate
judgment
merely
give
unsolicited
opportunity
reanalyze
law
judgment
premised
adequate
state
ground
ground
must
presumed
independent
unless
state
suggests
otherwise
nothing
south
dakota
law
establishes
presumption
state
constitution
adds
additional
protections
south
dakota
residents
beyond
already
provided
fourteenth
amendment
federal
constitution
indeed
south
dakota
explicitly
established
contrary
presumption
final
authority
interpretation
enforcement
south
dakota
constitution
always
assumed
independent
nature
state
constitution
regardless
similarity
language
document
federal
constitution
state
opperman
exists
independent
adequate
state
ground
judgment
dismiss
writ
certiorari
review
judgment
state
rests
adequate
independent
ground
state
law
review
one
fact
appears
record
herb
pitcairn
accord
jankovich
indiana
toll
road
honeyman
hanan
fox
film
muller
lynch
new
york
ex
rel
pierson
mccoy
shaw
petrie
nampa
meridian
irrigation
district
enterprise
irrigation
district
farmers
mutual
canal
eustis
bolles
murdock
memphis
wall
justice
harlan
wrote
mental
hygiene
dept
kirchner
jurisdiction
review
federal
ground
sole
basis
decision
state
constitution
interpreted
state
deemed
compulsion
federal
constitution
emphasis
original
omitted
ur
power
correct
wrong
judgments
revise
opinions
permitted
render
advisory
opinion
judgment
rendered
state
corrected
views
federal
laws
review
amount
nothing
advisory
opinion
herb
pitcairn
supra
accord
minnick
california
dept
corrections
rescue
army
municipal
hastings
policy
avoiding
advisory
opinions
federal
constitutional
issues
consistent
theme
throughout
jurisprudence
paschall
per
curiam
especially
instructive
case
independent
review
record
turned
state
ground
supporting
oklahoma
judgment
even
mentioned
state
opinion
observing
argument
proved
solid
decision
advisory
beyond
jurisdiction
remanded
analysis
claim
even
cases
arising
federal
courts
always
alert
opportunities
avoid
federal
constitutional
issues
means
disposition
mills
rogers
city
mesquite
aladdin
castle
siler
louisville
nashville
see
generally
hagans
lavine
nn
burden
petitioner
appellant
establish
jurisdiction
therefore
regularly
dismissed
cases
state
judgment
might
rested
independent
adequate
state
ground
durley
mayo
stembridge
georgia
lynch
new
york
ex
rel
pierson
supra
johnson
risk
south
dakota
speaking
remand
state
previously
held
certain
police
conduct
unconstitutional
relying
solely
fourth
amendment
federal
constitution
state
opperman
reversed
south
dakota
opperman
passage
text
excerpted
south
dakota
reaffirmation
rationale
prior
opinion
relying
state
constitution
reaching
conclusion
noted
language
relevant
state
provision
almost
identical
found
fourth
amendment
unmoved
prosecutor
observation
defendant
argued
first
appeal
state
federal
law
different
quoting
opinion
schmerber
california
south
dakota
stated
indicates
schmerber
decided
light
liberal
definition
evidence
used
state
constitution
since
fifth
amendment
constitution
broad
enough
exclude
evidence
need
draw
distinction
time
const
art
vi
fifth
amendment
constitution
delaware
prouse
interpret
opinion
delaware
although
must
confess
misgivings
reaching
conclusion
without
clarification
see
infra
far
indication
case
one
state
analysis
contingent
correctness
understanding
federal
law
opinion
began
statement
police
stops
violate
federal
state
constitutional
guarantees
state
prouse
went
say
state
federal
constitutions
substantially
similar
violation
latter
necessarily
violation
former
opinion
drew
close
statement
hold
therefore
random
stop
motorist
absent
reasonable
suspicion
constitutionally
impermissible
violative
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
constitution
cases
apparent
adequate
state
ground
arguably
independent
occasionally
vacated
judgment
remanded
clarification
basis
decision
air
pollution
variance
board
western
alfalfa
california
krivda
mental
hygiene
dept
kirchner
minnesota
national
tea
state
tax
van
cott
cf
herb
pitcairn
case
held
parties
sought
certificate
state
clarifying
basis
judgment
least
follow
course
today
cases
answer
clear
us
seems
consistent
respect
due
highest
courts
union
asked
rather
told
intended
us
pointed
even
practice
may
overused
tak
es
appellants
normal
burden
demonstrating
jurisdiction
plac
es
state
philadelphia
newspapers
jerome
rehnquist
joined
stevens
dissenting
see
also
department
motor
vehicles
california
rios
douglas
joined
brennan
stewart
marshall
dissenting