PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court seems unlikely to let police order blood tests for drunk-driving suspects




stu2002
01-10-2013, 08:40 AM
By Robert Barnes, Published: January 9

The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed unlikely to allow police to routinely force suspected drunk drivers to give a blood sample without the officers at least trying to obtain a warrant from a judge.

Justices across the ideological spectrum seemed to recoil during oral arguments from what Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. described as the “pretty scary image of somebody restrained, and, you know, a representative of the state approaching them with a needle.”

There seemed to be little, if any, support for the proposition that the usual constitutional protections that require a warrant for searches do not apply in drunk-driving arrests. Missouri, backed by the Obama administration, argued that a suspect’s dissipating blood-alcohol content meant that, in effect, evidence was being lost and thus drawing blood should not require consent or a judge’s order.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-unlikely-to-let-police-order-blood-tests-for-drunk-driving-suspects/2013/01/09/27feaf34-5a8f-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_story.html

tod evans
01-10-2013, 08:42 AM
Good!

angelatc
01-10-2013, 08:47 AM
I'll believe it when I see it. SCOTUS ruled that DUI roadblocks were constitutionally illegal, but that since the public safety was in play, they were going to allow it.

stu2002
01-10-2013, 08:47 AM
I'll believe it when I see it. SCOTUS ruled that DUI roadblocks were constitutionally illegal, but that since the public safety was in play, they were going to allow it.

True

kcchiefs6465
01-10-2013, 09:03 AM
I'll believe it when I see it. SCOTUS ruled that DUI roadblocks were constitutionally illegal, but that since the public safety was in play, they were going to allow it.
This. You refuse a breathalyzer and they will take your blood. You blow into a breathalyzer and are above the legal limit and they will take your blood. Fifth Amendment be damned. I've gone through it before. I refused a breathalyzer and a urinalysis and was charged with two DUIs under per se DUI laws. These were automatic license suspensions and the equivalent of an admission of guilt. I eventually decided, you know what, 'f' it, I'll take your stupid test. (I'd refused because when I was younger (14 or so) the police stopped me and a friend in broad daylight and said we were drunk. Though we really hadn't drank anything. After administering a breathalyzer on the side of the road (I could see the results when my friend took it- .00) the cop continued to harrass us saying he was drunk and the test proved it) After taking their often times uncalibrated and sometimes fraudulant test I registered a .01. The legal limit was .08. Wouldn't ya know that that didn't help my case one damn bit since I already had refused the breathalyzer and that was seen as an admission of guilt. Oh, and they robbed me of a couple hundred dollars.

Matt Collins
01-10-2013, 09:12 AM
Uhh.... in TN they do this, except that they have a judge on call to get a warrant

kcchiefs6465
01-10-2013, 09:23 AM
Uhh.... in TN they do this, except that they have a judge on call to get a warrant
And ink on standby? Seriously, a 'rubber stamp' makes no damn difference.

tod evans
01-10-2013, 09:33 AM
Don't you care about the children?

Think of the kids man, if even one childs life is saved then it's okay for cops to not only stick their fingers in any hole in your body now we need to accept roadside body fluid collection...

Coming soon CSF draws as well as vitreous-humor.........Just in case.. :mad: