|
Vitalux
Stranger from the next universe



Registered: 02/15/11
Posts: 2,695
Loc: Canada
|
BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional 1
#23374555 - 06/23/16 05:43 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
From This Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-forced-blood-draws/
Washington, D.C. — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that police can’t forcibly draw blood from individuals suspected of drunken driving without a warrant. This is a huge win for advocates of civil liberties. However, they continued to allow breath tests without a warrant — as the court considered them less intrusive.
--
The states argued that alcohol testing is a legitimate condition for being allowed the privilege of using publicly owned roads. They claim it was too much of a burden to have to obtain a warrant each time someone refused a test, as some rural areas only have one judge on call on weekends or in the late night hours.
Some of the justices challenged this suggestion during oral arguments, pointing out that even in rural areas, a simple phone call by police to a judge can get a warrant within minutes.
Those challenging the law claimed that warrantless searches are reserved for “extraordinary circumstances,” noting that a routine driving under the influence stop should be treated as a regular function of law enforcement where constitutional protections apply.
In a separate opinion penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which vigorously defended the rights of individual citizens, Sotomayor said she would have required search warrants for both breath and blood alcohol tests – stating that no governmental interest makes it impractical for an officer to get a warrant before measuring a driver’s alcohol level. “The Fourth Amendment prohibits such searches without a warrant, unless exigent circumstances exist in a particular case,” Sotomayor said.
The ruling stemmed from three cases in Minnesota and North Dakota in which drivers challenged “implied consent” laws as a violation of the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The laws had previously withstood challenges in state courts.
Although drivers in all 50 U.S. states can have their licenses revoked for refusing drunk driving tests, today’s ruling specifically affects 11 states that have laws that impose criminal penalties beyond license suspension for such refusals.
|
ReposadoXochipilli
Here, there, inbetween



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 7,501
Loc: Sand and sunshine
Last seen: 20 days, 42 minutes
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional Read more at h [Re: Vitalux]
#23374569 - 06/23/16 05:46 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
nice, when i got a dui i refused to blow because i knew i was really close to the limit and they had my blood like 20 minuets later due to them all being trained phlebotomist.
if it would have been 45 minuets i would have passed. such is life.
--------------------
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant


Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,693
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional Read more at h [Re: ReposadoXochipilli]
#23375634 - 06/23/16 11:32 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
They don't seem to grasp who is the public and who is the petty clerk.
|
trscstghst
stranger



Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 786
Loc: here
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional Read more at h [Re: durian_2008]
#23376078 - 06/24/16 04:54 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I live in one of those 11 states. if I this ruling was in place when I got a dui 6 years ago it would have meant the difference between a one year suspension and a 10 year suspension, and being labeled a habitual offender. I have only one dui. what made me a habitual had more to do with the two reckless driving offenses I got 7 years prior to the dui. in which I had a .09BAC and was pulled over for no reason as I left a bar. then was intimidated into pleading guilty
-------------------- Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp fields? o Henry Ford
|
Morel Guy
Stranger


Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional Read more at h [Re: trscstghst]
#23377296 - 06/24/16 12:11 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
They can still draw blood for a drug screen.
|
LawnPhenom
Stranger


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 361
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: Vitalux]
#23377836 - 06/24/16 03:19 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
ge can get a warrant within minutes.
Those challenging the law claimed that warrantless searches are reserved for “extraordinary circumstances,” noting that a routine driving under the influence stop should be treated as a regular function of law enforcement where constitutional protections apply.
The constituent applies to everything and everyone otherwise it's useless.
I read about the police doing this at soberiety check points in the south.
The original ideals of this country have been lost. The constitution was supposed to protect us from an over reaching government. And every time the fed takes away a right or privilege the sheep cheer. I guess this is a small victory.
|
Vitalux
Stranger from the next universe



Registered: 02/15/11
Posts: 2,695
Loc: Canada
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: LawnPhenom]
#23378003 - 06/24/16 04:21 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
How much bending over and taking it up the ass is it going to take before you American's clue in that you have been fucked.
Perhaps now some of you might start to reason it out that the USA is a corporation and you have no Constitution, no rights ....nothing....but a sore asshole .
In essence, you are all just a bunch of slaves on a huge plantation.
If you had rights....they could not be taken away....so then....you have no rights.....
You all should start to wake up ...before your asshole starts to break apart from all that pounding you poor suckers are getting
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant


Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,693
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: Vitalux]
#23378269 - 06/24/16 05:51 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I don't understand how word of this could get out, and you would still be tolerated by your family, neighbors, and local businesses.
I am not suggesting torches and pitchforks, which I am sure come to mind, so much as a sort of shunning, which I suppose is perfectly legal.
|
Black_Sunset
Amateur Anesthesiologist


Registered: 11/16/08
Posts: 2,451
Loc: Somewhere California
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: durian_2008]
#23378768 - 06/24/16 09:15 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The whole DUI process is a nightmare. I've never been pulled over for it, but it seems it's in your best interest to refuse all tests, including the tests given after your arrest which are part of your implied consent if that is applicable in your state.
--------------------

|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 3 hours, 27 minutes
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: Black_Sunset]
#23380353 - 06/25/16 10:35 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Black_Sunset said: The whole DUI process is a nightmare. I've never been pulled over for it, but it seems it's in your best interest to refuse all tests, including the tests given after your arrest which are part of your implied consent if that is applicable in your state.
It depends, but usually it is not in your best interest to refuse all tests. If you refuse tests, there is no way to prove that you were sober, even if you were. And your license gets suspended even if you are sober.
If you aren't sober, refusing tests will often increase penalties beyond what they would have been.
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant


Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,693
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
#23380383 - 06/25/16 10:42 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Respectfully, on what grounds was the person suspected of a crime. In other words, what was the probable cause, or the proof of that.
|
Vitalux
Stranger from the next universe



Registered: 02/15/11
Posts: 2,695
Loc: Canada
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
#23381650 - 06/25/16 06:07 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alan Rockefeller said:
Quote:
Black_Sunset said: The whole DUI process is a nightmare. I've never been pulled over for it, but it seems it's in your best interest to refuse all tests, including the tests given after your arrest which are part of your implied consent if that is applicable in your state.
It depends, but usually it is not in your best interest to refuse all tests. If you refuse tests, there is no way to prove that you were sober, even if you were. And your license gets suspended even if you are sober.
If you aren't sober, refusing tests will often increase penalties beyond what they would have been.
Given the nature of the situation..... There is a great deal of information which advises the best situation is to;
" remain silent "
"Officer can any of the information that you are demanding from me be used against me in a court of law or potentially incriminate me in any way"? 
Obviously the answer is "Yes"
then say; 
"Officer i believe the information can be used against me therefore i invoke my right be be silent. Do you intent to retaliate or punish me for simply invoking my right to remain silent.
I believe that in the USA this right is protected under the 4th and 5th amendment.
No man should be compelled to provide evidence to incriminate him/her self.
Innocent until proven guilty ....and that does not mean they can trample on your rights
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant


Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,693
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: Vitalux]
#23382108 - 06/25/16 08:39 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Firstly, I am not a lawyer. I don't even have considerable experience, in this dept.
I have said that I was cooperating, under threat, because they can make me do it.
This had an interesting effect, so far as I could tell.
Either they say you don't have to be searched, or you have been coerced, in violation of your Miranda rights.
Rather than asking them whether they intend to retaliate, say, you believe they are going to retaliate.
|
fapjack
Title



Registered: 07/26/07
Posts: 16,574
Loc: Central New Jersey
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: durian_2008]
#23387055 - 06/27/16 08:53 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
If you refuse and you get fail the DUI you get hit with both a DUI and a refusal.
--------------------
|
Vitalux
Stranger from the next universe



Registered: 02/15/11
Posts: 2,695
Loc: Canada
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: fapjack]
#23388216 - 06/27/16 04:22 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fapjack said: If you refuse and you get fail the DUI you get hit with both a DUI and a refusal.
it would be interesting to take that position whereby you fight it under the loss of your inalienable rights
Meaning ..... one should not be forced to provide information to self incrimination.
|
bloodsheen
ChemChaplin



Registered: 09/24/08
Posts: 7,659
Last seen: 4 years, 14 days
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: Vitalux]
#23389269 - 06/27/16 09:53 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Wheres Enlil when you need him?
I am also under the impression that if you are assuredly guilty it is better to just try to beat the roadside sobriety test, killing time and thus increasing your odds of beating another test. The whole "AM I BEING DETAINED?!" bullshit is just that: bullshit. You might have rights but we live in the real world where not everyone wants to get into an ACLU-esk battle with the police
--------------------
A cautious young fellow named Lodge / Had seat belts installed in his Dodge. / When his date was strapped in / He committed a sin / Without even leaving the garage. That's clever, isn't it?-A boy and his dog
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 3 hours, 27 minutes
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: bloodsheen]
#23389304 - 06/27/16 10:07 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
If you are driving and you are being pulled over, you are being detained. Asking "Am I being detained?" is very important for people who are not driving, and for drivers who have been ticketed but not yet told they can leave.
|
bloodsheen
ChemChaplin



Registered: 09/24/08
Posts: 7,659
Last seen: 4 years, 14 days
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
#23389383 - 06/27/16 10:33 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alan Rockefeller said: If you are driving and you are being pulled over, you are being detained. Asking "Am I being detained?" is very important for people who are not driving, and for drivers who have been ticketed but not yet told they can leave.
Yeah, I wasn't referring to asking it as a legitimate question such as the scenario you described, I meant the whole
Officer: "Sir, is that a giant bag of weed on your seat?"
Dumbass: "I am a medical marijuana provider. AM I BEING DETAINED?!"
... Its a thing. No police officer wants to be treated like a robot. The exact opposite way to get on their good side is to make yourself out to be contrary for no reason
--------------------
A cautious young fellow named Lodge / Had seat belts installed in his Dodge. / When his date was strapped in / He committed a sin / Without even leaving the garage. That's clever, isn't it?-A boy and his dog
|
Amanita86
OTD Keymaster


Registered: 09/26/12
Posts: 89,464
Loc: hades
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: bloodsheen]
#23389598 - 06/27/16 11:46 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Whether it's true or not, I wasn't there...but.
I knew this dude that took a ride and apparently hic-up'd and or burped until he was under the legal limit. As the story goes officers need to wait 15 minutes after a hic-up or burp. Did he go "downtown", yes. Did he escape a dui, as his story goes, yes.
I find it easier just to not drive fucked up, I'm one of those play it safe types. But if you ever find yourself in a pinch, maybe think about it.
As far as some bunk ass cop trying to draw my blood, I have every last dollar betting I get tazed until black out. No piggy piggy is sticking me. Final answer.
--------------------
Orange clock, pencil "They threw me off the hay truck about noon..."
*Mark 15:34  Gam zeh ya’avor...
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant


Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,693
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Forced Blood Draws for DUI Unconstitutional [Re: fapjack]
#23390779 - 06/28/16 10:56 AM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fapjack said: If you refuse and you get fail the DUI you get hit with both a DUI and a refusal.
I am not being dogmatic, particularly as I believe that there is some discretion involved.
But, they have dashboard and other cameras.
How do they show probable cause, except as hearsay.
If I was litigious, I would press for false arrest, under the color of law.
Further, this can conceivably be pursued at the corporate level -- short of an extra judicial lynching.
As praetorians, they can end the discussion, at any time.
So, yes, all interrogation is coercive, not voluntary. You can typically say so, a the time of the needless stop, calmly, and without escalation.
I would never drive, impaired, simply do not traffic in contraband, down the interstate, am not prone to violent ideation or self-harm. Just saying.
|
|