It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: norhoc
FACT- Implied consent only applies if there is PC or Reasonable suspicion to believe the person committed a crime, in this case they had NO PC or RS so implied consent does not apply.
FACT - in addition scotus said warrantless blood draws can occur under exigent circumstances.
You continually fail to add that important part - why?
Exigent circstances? Like a truck driver that was the victim of a police chase and a race against the clock to prove the victim a criminal in order to save the department from lawsuit?
Is that defined as Exigent?
Determined by the officer on scene running the investigation.
Ask Logan pd or wait for the conclusion of the investigation.
Ok. How about just your opinion or experience with this. Would a risk of lawsuit against a police department be considered exigent circumstance for an "officer on scene running the investigation" ??
Does public perception and liability count as Exigent circumstance? When a PD is in trouble with potential lawsuit all gloves are off cause it's exigent?
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra
And in that reply to me you just admitted that all of us saying this was illegal are right. When I said there was no PC, RS, exigent, hence no legal standing and you replied "that we are aware of" so you agree as of right now there was no legal standing. Thank You, Case Closed, Debate over, bravo on it taking 45+ pages
originally posted by: norhoc
POST REMOVED BY STAFF
41-6a-523. Persons authorized to draw blood -- Immunity from liability.
(1) (a) Only the following, acting at the request of a peace officer, may draw blood to determine its alcohol or drug content:
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: [post=22636674]Xcathdra[/post
you accuse others of doing what you are doing, again you can't answer the exigent circumstances question because you know you are wrong here and just can't admit it, just like the meathead cop in the video
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra
doesn't work that way buddy, you are the one making the claim of exigent circumstance, so burden of proof is on you
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra
I think we all do from the video. the truck driver was in his lane of traffic when a fleeing suspect in a police high speed pursuit veered into oncoming traffic and hit the truck driver's vehicle
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra
It is a fact the PD changed their policy , if they were in the right they would not have changed their policy
originally posted by: norhoc
POST REMOVED BY STAFF
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra
Despite the fact legal scholars and police professionals do not? And the law states for implied consent to apply you need PC, RS, or EC and none of those were in play here?