Multiple Choice
In considering the use of results of blood, urine, and breath tests to determine intoxication, and comments by the prosecutor concerning a defendant's refusal to take the test, the United States Supreme Court has determined that:
A) requiring the taking of such tests does not violate self-incrimination rights, but comments by the prosecutor on the failure to take the test violate self-incrimination rights.
B) the extraction of blood samples for such tests does not violate the self-incrimination rights of the person but does violate the right to counsel protection.
C) a state statute allowing the introduction of evidence of refusal to take the test violates self-incrimination provisions.
D) neither the extraction of blood samples for blood-alcohol tests nor comments by the prosecutor on refusal to take the test violates self-incrimination protections.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q2: Has any court approved the use of
Q3: In the case of Commonwealth v. Gaynor,
Q4: Evidence that is the result of examinations
Q5: What are the reasons and rationales that
Q6: In the Supreme Court case Maryland v.
Q7: The courts have established rules concerning the
Q8: In jurisdictions in which the results of
Q9: In People v. Wilkinson, the defendant wanted
Q10: Blood tests often serve the useful purpose
Q11: Several courts have considered the use of