Supreme Court to decide if blood tests are 'unreasonable search'

[Good Times]

Interesting article I found today...

LA Times Article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-blood-test-20120925,0,6454685.story)

First off without siding with either sides, I'd like to say the guy that got arrested and found an attorney to figure out a way throw out a 0.154 blood alcohol result in court is impressive. I've never seen or even thought that would be possible but I guess that's the contrary now.

Now depending on how the Supreme Court rules it'll be interesting how this really impacts DUI's.

Obviously we don't want any drunks on the road but if this rule does pass it'll be interesting how it'll be enforced.

[CJM]

Really? No, this falls directly under exigent circumstances... Ive bolded the important parts regarding this case:

Taken from wikipedia

There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement.[Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched

I fully feel it falls under the clause. The man was not only a danger to others to to himself. He could have cause an accident and injured himself or others or worse.

Go figure, the ACLU is providing his counsel..wtf do you expect. Scalia and the others are idiots anyways. The supreme ct justices are self serving idiots anyways it seems in almost all cases (DC vs heller not with standing. SOMEHOW they made the right call for once!)

[Crinale]

We'll see, I actually am inclined to agree with the two lower judges in this case. Was this man obviously intoxicated? Yes it seems that way. But a blood draw, to me, should only be able to be ordered by a judge/court, not by a peace officer. Once stopped, there was no longer an exigent circumstance of danger to anyone; the officer could have arrested the man for a failure to comply, and taken him to the holding cell while impounding his car. With how obviously drunk this person was, I would be surprised if it would take long for a judge to approve a warrant.

[Good Times]

To play devils advocate, if the suspected drunk driver is told to blow into the breath analyzer and/or the blood test isn't that also the right against self incrimination apply?

Just stirring the pot of course :)

[Crinale]

So, Lance, basically you are positing that people accused of DUI could possibly have a defense based on the Bill of Rights either way? (The fifth amendment - self incrimination, and the fourth amendment - illegal search/seizure) interesting tidbits these are.

[CJM]

Hmm didnt see that point earlier but now I tend to kinda agree with Crinale. He coulda just been arrested and not been forced to give blood.

[Good Times]

Just opening everyone's eyes to how our laws work for and against us. In this example we build rules that everyone should abide by and somehow there's always another rule that says otherwise. Our system is not perfect by any means and this example is just one of many that really makes our system flawed.

Clearly if someone is unable to talk normally (slurred speech) and also can't pass the physical test then that person should not be driving. How to arrest the individual that proves beyond a reasonable doubt is the challenge depending on how the ruling stands.

I'm torn because I am a firm believer in our Bill of Rights. The basis of our foundation yet scenarios like this shouldn't really makes me think twice because how it is used and abused.

As for this example, I thought getting a driver's license was a privilege and when you sign the license you agree to searches if you are suspected of a DUI and subjected to either a breath analyzer or a blood test. Not sure I've never had to worry about this since I try by darnest to never drive drunk but am curious how each state views this. I know for a fact each state is probably different.

carry on!

[04 Rocko Taco]

To play devils advocate, if the suspected drunk driver is told to blow into the breath analyzer and/or the blood test isn't that also the right against self incrimination apply?

Just stirring the pot of course :)




DISCLAIMER: This applies to at LEAST Tennessee, and many other states in the southeast.

You can refuse the breathalyzer, or a blood test for that matter.

You will get another charge tacked on called "Violation of Implied Consent" which means that you give implied consent to a breath/blood test by having a drivers license, and using public roads.

This case is pretty clear cut to me, but the way it will ripple out to other things may not be so clear cut and will be interesting to see.

[corax]

I don't remember the exact specifics, but IIRC in Pennsylvania, if you refuse to take a breathalyzer or blood test you are detained overnight & automatically loose your license for the same amount of time as the DUI.

IMO, if a cop needs a search warrant to enter your house (without exigent circumstances), the same should apply to sticking a piece of metal through your flesh and pulling blood.