SCOTUS to review DUI blood sample legality

[devil21]

It was bound to end up in front of SCOTUS eventually. This case could either stop the practice entirely or open the floodgates for roadside police blood draws, depending on SCOTUS' ruling.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-review-blood-tests-suspected-drunken-drivers-135742709.html



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to consider whether police must get a warrant before forcing a suspected drunken driver to submit to a blood test, in a case that could set a new legal standard for motorists' privacy.

Police in the state of Missouri argued they should not have to wait for approval to draw blood given how quickly alcohol dissipates in the bloodstream.

The state's highest court rejected that argument in a January 17 decision, saying the test violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

According to the FBI, about 1.41 million people were arrested in the United States in 2010 for driving under the influence.

moreatlink

Based on an average DUI case cost of $5000, that makes DUI at least a $7 BILLION national industry.

[Anti Federalist]

Is there even speculation about how SCROTUS will rule on this?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Is there even speculation about how SCROTUS will rule on this?

lol. Not really.

And I also believe their reasoning is WRONG once again.


Police in the state of Missouri argued they should not have to wait for approval to draw blood given how quickly alcohol dissipates in the bloodstream.

I was under the impression that people usually get drunker (more alcohol in bloodstream) as time goes on, assuming they had their last drink and got in a car. It takes awhile for all of the alcohol to enter the bloodstream. So if arrested and taken to the station, they will often have a higher blood test BAC then they did at the time of arrest.

Am I wrong? Anyone want to correct or confirm?

[phill4paul]

Is there even speculation about how SCROTUS will rule on this?

None. What-so-ever.

[DamianTV]

Is there even speculation about how SCROTUS will rule on this?

Definitely not. I do not trust our Congress to pass any laws which do not undermine our liberty and I do not trust the Supreme Court to rule against any law which somehow benefits the Government. Seven Billion is a lot of incentive for abuse. If and When permanent DNA records for every single person are challenged, those rulings in support will be upheld as well. Even in a balanced system of Government, where you have an Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branch, when all three Branches are completely corrupted, the end result will not be a Government that is held in balance with the Rights of the People. Besides, regardless of the SC's ruling, if the other two branches are not satisfied with that ruling, they will just override that ruling.

Our Judicial System does nothing but maintains the Illusion of Justice.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Is there even speculation about how SCROTUS will rule on this?

Nope. Especially after they ruled that cops can strip search suspects even before charging them with anything without any reason needed.

[KingNothing]

I was under the impression that people usually get drunker (more alcohol in bloodstream) as time goes on, assuming they had their last drink and got in a car. It takes awhile for all of the alcohol to enter the bloodstream.

I could be wrong here but I believe most states do two alcohol tests - one on the side of the road to establish cause, and one back at the station to be used in court. The test to be used in court generally must take place within 30-minutes and 2-hours of arrest. I think they opted for this time frame to account for the body's ability to metabolize alcohol, and deem it "most fair" to both perp and State.

[KingNothing]

Nope. Especially after they ruled that cops can strip search suspects even before charging them with anything without any reason needed.

Wait, what?

That wasn't overturned?!??! I completely forgot about that!

[devil21]

I could be wrong here but I believe most states do two alcohol tests - one on the side of the road to establish cause, and one back at the station to be used in court. The test to be used in court generally must take place within 30-minutes and 2-hours of arrest. I think they opted for this time frame to account for the body's ability to metabolize alcohol, and deem it "most fair" to both perp and State.

This is the typical procedure.

What they don't like, and is the main basis for the push for blood tests, is that people have been learning that they don't have to take any of those typical tests. No roadside "touch your nose" tests and no "blow into this contraption" tests. Just say no to tests! You may still be charged with DUI and charged with refusing the formal test at the station (thus losing your license) but refusing tests means little evidence to be used against you in court other than the cop's testimony. People are slowly but surely picking this up and refusing to take tests, thus limiting the cops and prosecutors ability to convict. The mandatory "strap you down and TAKE your blood" is the response to this.

[KingNothing]

This is the typical procedure.

What they don't like, and is the main basis for the push for blood tests, is that people have been learning that they don't have to take any of those typical tests. No roadside "touch your nose" tests and no "blow into this contraption" tests. Just say no to tests! You may still be charged with DUI and charged with refusing the formal test at the station (thus losing your license) but refusing tests means little evidence to be used against you in court other than the cop's testimony. People are slowly but surely picking this up and refusing to take tests, thus limiting the cops and prosecutors ability to convict. The mandatory "strap you down and TAKE your blood" is the response to this.

A lot of state's get around this by making first offense DUI penalties much less strict than refusals. Implied Consent states really addressed the void you speak of.

[devil21]

What states are those that refusals (implied consent) are statutorily more severe than a first DUI conviction???? I disagree with your premise entirely.

Refusals don't carry possible jail time, mandatory alcohol classes with drug tests, huge insurance increases, huge fines and court costs and everything else that DUI sentences carry.

[jkr]

when they get done, robot mosquitoes will be everywhere wifi'n EVERYTHING we have in us...including disease, genetic markers, "contraband" BiG greasy bURGAs, who you just were with-EVERYTHING

[brandon]

In PA, refusing a breathlyzer is an automatic one year license suspension. I believe first offense DUI usually only has a 3 month suspension. And refusal is generally seen as an admission of guilt so you'll get the DUI charge anyway.

[angelatc]

Is there even speculation about how SCROTUS will rule on this?

Well, since they ruled that they were going to allow DUI roadblocks even though they were technically not constitutional, I can say that I have no doubt that they will tell us that this is ok because they want to keep us safe.

[brandon]

I was under the impression that people usually get drunker (more alcohol in bloodstream) as time goes on, assuming they had their last drink and got in a car. It takes awhile for all of the alcohol to enter the bloodstream.

It does take the alcohol some amount of time to go from your stomach to your bloodstream, but it's not very long. I don't have any hard numbers on this (maybe I'll go look it up) but I want to say it only takes like 5-15 minutes for alcohol to get in your blood stream. I guess if you ate a ton of food and consumed a shit load of low alcohol content drinks it could take longer.

[devil21]

In PA, refusing a breathlyzer is an automatic one year license suspension. I believe first offense DUI usually only has a 3 month suspension. And refusal is generally seen as an admission of guilt so you'll get the DUI charge anyway.

Im not familiar with PA law but Im going to bet that the refusal is ONLY a one year license suspension and nothing more, while the DUI suspension carries probation (alcohol classes with drug tests) for longer than the 3 month suspension, along with additional requirements and penalties that the refusal does not. There's no one on this planet that will convince me that it's better to give the state evidence against you (certified BAC, subjective roadside test testimony) to convict than to just accept the refusal penalty and give yourself leverage against DUI charge. Why have a 4th and 5th amendment if you'll just hand over evidence to them without a warrant?

(note: my statements on this thread are in the context of whether you are likely to be legally drunk .08 BAC at the time of the stop. If you're sober and/or know you'll pass since you only drank a couple beers then one should weigh their options at that time. No one should EVER tell a police officer that you have had any alcohol to drink during a traffic stop!!! Keep your mouth shut but weigh your options based on circumstances.)

[jkr]

take my dog tag, i want 2 be free

[dillo]

How is a breathalyzer not contradictory to the 5th amendment.

[sparebulb]

The Supremes will uphold the practice with a "bipartisan" majority. The corporate media will cheer, therefore, the public will cheer. All will be safer in society and only drunk drivers, terrorists, and anti-government kooks will be unhappy.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

In PA, refusing a breathlyzer is an automatic one year license suspension. I believe first offense DUI usually only has a 3 month suspension.

LOL. That really makes me feel hopeless. Refusing to give some asshole a sample of your breath is a one year license suspension. wtf.

[sparebulb]

LOL. That really makes me feel hopeless. Refusing to give some asshole a sample of your breath is a one year license suspension. wtf.

Missouri has been this way for many years. I simply do not want the pigs to draw blood from me at all. I do not drink, therefore, I am not concerned about the results of a breath test, but I've seen the game that they play. At the traffic stop or road block, once you answer a question not to the pig's liking, you are demanded to exit the car for the simon-says field test, which every person will fail resulting in a demand for a breath test. The results of the field test will be used against you regardless of the results of the breath test. Yes, you can be charged with DWI solely on the results of the simon-says field test even though you blew zero on the breath test. That very thing happened to a friend of mine in Alaska. He beat the charge after many months, a lawyer, and mucho $$$. It is my intention to refuse the field test and willingly opt for a breath test or clinical blood test in a medical facility by medical staff.