Supreme Court: No to DWI warrantless blood test

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Same thing in NJ and NC...In those states and most likely many others, driving IS NOT a right. The state grants an operators license to an individual for use of the roadways.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

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?

So what's your problem with Justice Thomas?

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.

I'm not the one who said: thereisnospoon - If I were to fail a field breathylizer, I would DEMAND a blood test.. ... presumably after enough time had elapsed to void the Breathalyzer.

Thomas is saying immediately rather than waist time with a warrant or time for the defendant to sober up.

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.

10/4.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

So what's your problem with Justice Thomas?

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.

I'm not the one who said: thereisnospoon - If I were to fail a field breathylizer, I would DEMAND a blood test.. ... presumably after enough time had elapsed to void the Breathalyzer.

Thomas is saying immediately rather than waist time with a warrant or time for the defendant to sober up.

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.

10/4.

On Thomas' dissent. He's correct. In one regard. The existence of the 'exigent circumstances' exclusion..

 

[Agit8r]

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

Just because he likes that sort of website, doesn't mean he gets woolly in real life.

 

[Politico]

Just suspend their license and charge them. That's the way it works everywhere else.