Supreme Court: No to DWI warrantless blood test

[Oldguy]

In a case from Missouri, the Court has ruled that the police may not force a DWI suspect to relinquish a blood sample without a warrant or barring some extreme circumstance.

In this case, the man was stopped for something else and, when the officer wanted him to take a breath test, refused. So, the cop took him to a medical facility where he ordered the technician to take a blood sample, even though the man refused that too.

The Court ruled that was an un-Constitutional infringement upon his right to be free from unreasonable searches.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf


And excellent and well-founded ruling. Many states, including Texas where I live, have begun forcing suspects to submit to a blood test without obtaining a warrant, especially on holiday weekends. This ought to stop that assault on our Constitutional rights.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Thank god.

How long before the Supreme Snort says otherwise?

 

[Article 15]

Clarance Thomas proves yet again that he is unfit for the bench.

 

[Oldguy]

Thank god.

How long before the Supreme Snort says otherwise?

That IS the Supreme Court.

 

[editec]

Is mandatory road-side bone-marrow testing too much to ask?

We owe it to the children to be stripped of all privacy rights.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Is mandatory road-side bone-marrow testing too much to ask?

We owe it to the children to be stripped of all privacy rights.

The 4th Amendment just gets in the way of Law Enforcement and Government keeping us safe.

 

[Oldguy]

Is mandatory road-side bone-marrow testing too much to ask?

We owe it to the children to be stripped of all privacy rights.

Why not just shoot everybody as a suspected criminal? I mean, really....we've ALL violated a law at some point, right?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Is mandatory road-side bone-marrow testing too much to ask?

We owe it to the children to be stripped of all privacy rights.

The 4th Amendment just gets in the way of Law Enforcement and Government keeping us safe.

Would you OFF YOURSELF, already, and put us out of your misery!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This ruling applies to people pulled over for other things, anyone pulled over for suspicion of DUI can still be given a breathalizer and most States law states if you refuse they will simply find you guilty, no blood test required.

Anyone that thinks the cops should not be able to breathalizer people is a moron. I agree they can not force a blood test though.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Interesting.. I wonder how this ruling will square with States like mine where you agree to give blood as a condition of having a State issued Drivers License.

 

[tjvh]

Until driving becomes a Right, it doesn't really matter.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In a case from Missouri, the Court has ruled that the police may not force a DWI suspect to relinquish a blood sample without a warrant or barring some extreme circumstance.

In this case, the man was stopped for something else and, when the officer wanted him to take a breath test, refused. So, the cop took him to a medical facility where he ordered the technician to take a blood sample, even though the man refused that too.

The Court ruled that was an un-Constitutional infringement upon his right to be free from unreasonable searches.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf


And excellent and well-founded ruling. Many states, including Texas where I live, have begun forcing suspects to submit to a blood test without obtaining a warrant, especially on holiday weekends. This ought to stop that assault on our Constitutional rights.

Not so sure I like this one.
While I oppose checkpoints. I think that is lazy and smacks of police statism. I think police are trained to observe and determine with the high degree of certainty when a person is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. The act of taking a blood sample is to confirm a breathylizer test.
This ruling will backfire on the citizens. I will explain.
North Carolina is probably one of the most strict in enforcement of drunk drugged driving laws. So much so that after a series report written by the Charlotte( NC) Observer, it was revealed that some counties has DWI conviction rates as low as 30%. Drivers were getting out of charges in alarming numbers. The number of repeat offenders in the state was skyrocketing. So in its infinite wisdom, the NC State legislature passed and the governor signed into law that the field breathylizer test is enough alone to obtain a conviction.
Basically the breath box is as good as a conviction. Now as we all know police can make errors and too often the field model is not accurate.
So now we have SCOTUS buying right into this. Not good.
If I were to fail a field breathylizer, I would DEMAND a blood test..By the time they transport the suspect to the hospital and waits his turn to see a medical professional to administer the test, the suspect's BAC has most likely fallen below the legal limit. There goes the evidence right out of the window.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Interesting.. I wonder how this ruling will square with States like mine where you agree to give blood as a condition of having a State issued Drivers License.

I think nearly all states have the implied consent law on their books.
In an earlier post I pointed out the NC law that states a failed field breathylizer test is now considered be sufficient for conviction.
With this SCOTUS ruling, it is my guess that other states may follow suit.
This ruling has to drive those Hags over at MADD bat shit crazy.

 

[BreezeWood]

In a case from Missouri, the Court has ruled that the police may not force a DWI suspect to relinquish a blood sample without a warrant or barring some extreme circumstance.

In this case, the man was stopped for something else and, when the officer wanted him to take a breath test, refused. So, the cop took him to a medical facility where he ordered the technician to take a blood sample, even though the man refused that too.

The Court ruled that was an un-Constitutional infringement upon his right to be free from unreasonable searches.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf


And excellent and well-founded ruling. Many states, including Texas where I live, have begun forcing suspects to submit to a blood test without obtaining a warrant, especially on holiday weekends. This ought to stop that assault on our Constitutional rights.

Not so sure I like this one.
While I oppose checkpoints. I think that is lazy and smacks of police statism. I think police are trained to observe and determine with the high degree of certainty when a person is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. The act of taking a blood sample is to confirm a breathylizer test.
This ruling will backfire on the citizens. I will explain.
North Carolina is probably one of the most strict in enforcement of drunk drugged driving laws. So much so that after a series report written by the Charlotte( NC) Observer, it was revealed that some counties has DWI conviction rates as low as 30%. Drivers were getting out of charges in alarming numbers. The number of repeat offenders in the state was skyrocketing. So in its infinite wisdom, the NC State legislature passed and the governor signed into law that the field breathylizer test is enough alone to obtain a conviction.
Basically the breath box is as good as a conviction. Now as we all know police can make errors and too often the field model is not accurate.
So now we have SCOTUS buying right into this. Not good.
If I were to fail a field breathylizer, I would DEMAND a blood test..By the time they transport the suspect to the hospital and waits his turn to see a medical professional to administer the test, the suspect's BAC has most likely fallen below the legal limit. There goes the evidence right out of the window.

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

This case requires the Court to decide whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits an officer from obtaining a blood sample without a warrant when there is probable cause to believe that a suspect has been driving under the influence of alcohol. Because the body’s natural meta- bolization of alcohol inevitably destroys evidence of the crime, it constitutes an exigent circumstance. As a result, I would hold that a warrantless blood draw does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

thereisnospoon: If I were to fail a field breathylizer, I would DEMAND a blood test..By the time they transport the suspect to the hospital and waits his turn to see a medical professional to administer the test, the suspect's BAC has most likely fallen below the legal limit. There goes the evidence right out of the window.

well thereisnospoon, it's hard to pull the wool over the ever vigilant Clarence Thomas ....

 

[Erand7899]

This ruling applies to people pulled over for other things, anyone pulled over for suspicion of DUI can still be given a breathalizer and most States law states if you refuse they will simply find you guilty, no blood test required.

Anyone that thinks the cops should not be able to breathalizer people is a moron. I agree they can not force a blood test though.

Few, if any states, can find one guilty for refusing to take a breathilizer, or a blood test, but they can remove your driving privledge for refusing. And, the person can still be convicted if the evidence warrants it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In California they are not bothered by such a circumstance. You don't have to submit to a blood test, breath test, or anything else.

But Calif law simply saus that if you EVER refuse to submit to such a test, they can take away your license right then and there.

Because, they say, having a driver's license in Calif isn't a right. It's a privilege. So your RIGHTS aren't being violated.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

This ruling applies to people pulled over for other things, anyone pulled over for suspicion of DUI can still be given a breathalizer and most States law states if you refuse they will simply find you guilty, no blood test required.

Anyone that thinks the cops should not be able to breathalizer people is a moron. I agree they can not force a blood test though.

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea for a cop to pull you over and demand you give him self-incriminating evidence is a moron.

Hate to break it to ya.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

In California they are not bothered by such a circumstance. You don't have to submit to a blood test, breath test, or anything else.

But Calif law simply saus that if you EVER refuse to submit to such a test, they can take away your license right then and there.

Because, they say, having a driver's license in Calif isn't a right. It's a privilege. So your RIGHTS aren't being violated.

Everone is California is under de facto house arrest.

How nice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In a case from Missouri, the Court has ruled that the police may not force a DWI suspect to relinquish a blood sample without a warrant or barring some extreme circumstance.

In this case, the man was stopped for something else and, when the officer wanted him to take a breath test, refused. So, the cop took him to a medical facility where he ordered the technician to take a blood sample, even though the man refused that too.

The Court ruled that was an un-Constitutional infringement upon his right to be free from unreasonable searches.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf


And excellent and well-founded ruling. Many states, including Texas where I live, have begun forcing suspects to submit to a blood test without obtaining a warrant, especially on holiday weekends. This ought to stop that assault on our Constitutional rights.

From the ruling:

The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that“[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searchesand seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Our cases have held that a warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception. See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 224 (1973). That principle applies to the type of search at issue in this case, which involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely’s skin and into his veins to obtain a sample of his blood for use as evidence in a criminal investigation.

As encouraging as this is for those of us who are concerned with ever-encroaching state powers, reading the text of the 4th Amendment along with the facts of the case, it is discouraging that this became a matter for the courts to address at all, and its resolution had to be realized in the Supreme Court.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In a case from Missouri, the Court has ruled that the police may not force a DWI suspect to relinquish a blood sample without a warrant or barring some extreme circumstance.

In this case, the man was stopped for something else and, when the officer wanted him to take a breath test, refused. So, the cop took him to a medical facility where he ordered the technician to take a blood sample, even though the man refused that too.

The Court ruled that was an un-Constitutional infringement upon his right to be free from unreasonable searches.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf


And excellent and well-founded ruling. Many states, including Texas where I live, have begun forcing suspects to submit to a blood test without obtaining a warrant, especially on holiday weekends. This ought to stop that assault on our Constitutional rights.

Not so sure I like this one.
While I oppose checkpoints. I think that is lazy and smacks of police statism. I think police are trained to observe and determine with the high degree of certainty when a person is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. The act of taking a blood sample is to confirm a breathylizer test.
This ruling will backfire on the citizens. I will explain.
North Carolina is probably one of the most strict in enforcement of drunk drugged driving laws. So much so that after a series report written by the Charlotte( NC) Observer, it was revealed that some counties has DWI conviction rates as low as 30%. Drivers were getting out of charges in alarming numbers. The number of repeat offenders in the state was skyrocketing. So in its infinite wisdom, the NC State legislature passed and the governor signed into law that the field breathylizer test is enough alone to obtain a conviction.
Basically the breath box is as good as a conviction. Now as we all know police can make errors and too often the field model is not accurate.
So now we have SCOTUS buying right into this. Not good.
If I were to fail a field breathylizer, I would DEMAND a blood test..By the time they transport the suspect to the hospital and waits his turn to see a medical professional to administer the test, the suspect's BAC has most likely fallen below the legal limit. There goes the evidence right out of the window.

thereisnospoon: If I were to fail a field breathylizer, I would DEMAND a blood test..By the time they transport the suspect to the hospital and waits his turn to see a medical professional to administer the test, the suspect's BAC has most likely fallen below the legal limit. There goes the evidence right out of the window.

well thereisnospoon, it's hard to pull the wool over the ever vigilant Clarence Thomas ....

Trust me on this...The SCOTUS essentially forced all ADA's to use the 'exigent circumstances' exception...
Think of the consequences. Drunks getting off left and right, crowding our roads with dangerous drivers.
As much as I despise police road blocks , I still want the "people" to have every available tool in the battle against drunk/drugged driving.
So what's your problem with Justice Thomas?