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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Justices indicated Wednesday that the dangers of drunken driving don't trump the Fourth Amendment, peppering lawyers for the state of Missouri with objections to their request that the Supreme Court allow law enforcement to order blood tests for DUI without suspects' consent.
The case, Missouri v. McNeely, is seen as a landmark that could clear up almost 50 years of uncertainty over the constitutionality of blood tests that are conducted without a warrant. Legal scholars say it could rewrite drunken-driving laws in all 50 states.
Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
furthermore what efect will this have on drivers liscences as i seem to rember submitting to blood breath and urine testing being a part of getting one.... so who knows what this case will bring but i figured ats might find it interesting
usnews. nbcnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
www.supremecourt.gov... link to a pdf on the full text of the decisionedit on 9-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)
more links www.kmbz.com...
www.cliqz.com...
www.stlbeacon.org...#!/content/28818/supreme_court_missouri_blood_testedit on 9-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)
www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com... and
After a routine arrest for driving under the influence ("DUI") in Florida the arresting officer will usually ask the driver to submit to a chemical test of his breath by blowing into the breath machine (also called the "breathalyzer" or "Intoxilyzer 8000"). Under Florida law, if the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the driver may be impaired by drugs, the arresting officer may also ask the driver to submit to a urine test. In many cases involving an accident and a driver that is seeking medical attention for his injuries, the officer may ask for a blood test.
legallad.quickanddirtytips.com... that link is a better example of what i was trying to say
Contrary to some urban myths out there, you have no Constitutional right to refuse to take a breathalyzer test. States across the USA have adopted so-called “implied consent” laws. That means that every time you get behind the wheel of a car, the law assumes that you have agreed to submit to a chemical test of breath, blood, urine, or saliva, for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol level. Under these laws, if a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that you are driving under the influence, your refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test can result in the suspension or revocation of your license. In some states, refusal to submit to a test is a crime in itself, and can even lead to jail time. The fact that you refused to take a breathalyzer can also be used against you at the trial of your drunk driving charge.
The officer who arrested Tyler McNeely acknowledged that he didn't seek a warrant when he told a hospital lab technician to draw McNeely's blood after a DUI stop in 2010 because he believed he didn't need to, not because he didn't think he couldn't get one in time.
It's physically difficult, nigh impossible, to force someone to blow, but not to forcefully draw blood.
"Why don't you force him (McNeely) to take the Breathalyzer test, instead of forcing him to have a needle shoved in his arm?" Scalia asked.
Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Robonakka
i live in montana, i was referring to the part we all have to sign when we get our drivers licenses saying that we will submit to a test of our breath,urine,or blood if requested by law enforcement
not saying that you have to take a urine test to get a drivers license,i just seem to remember having to sign such a statement when i got my license in the first place. so you might wanna find out if your required to by possessing a license to drive a car in your state
edit it might be just for dui offenses but i figured this was pretty standard accross the united states as far as laws go
www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com... and
After a routine arrest for driving under the influence ("DUI") in Florida the arresting officer will usually ask the driver to submit to a chemical test of his breath by blowing into the breath machine (also called the "breathalyzer" or "Intoxilyzer 8000"). Under Florida law, if the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the driver may be impaired by drugs, the arresting officer may also ask the driver to submit to a urine test. In many cases involving an accident and a driver that is seeking medical attention for his injuries, the officer may ask for a blood test.
legallad.quickanddirtytips.com... that link is a better example of what i was trying to say
Contrary to some urban myths out there, you have no Constitutional right to refuse to take a breathalyzer test. States across the USA have adopted so-called “implied consent” laws. That means that every time you get behind the wheel of a car, the law assumes that you have agreed to submit to a chemical test of breath, blood, urine, or saliva, for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol level. Under these laws, if a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that you are driving under the influence, your refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test can result in the suspension or revocation of your license. In some states, refusal to submit to a test is a crime in itself, and can even lead to jail time. The fact that you refused to take a breathalyzer can also be used against you at the trial of your drunk driving charge.
edit on 9-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)
It is not the full text of the decision. It is the full text of oral arguments. Not even the case documents are included here.
www.supremecourt.gov... link to a pdf on the full text of the decision
Originally posted by ararisq
You can bet if they allow it then police will be conducting blood tests on disagreeable people just for the satisfaction of having a new government sponsored harassment tool to educate the masses about their real role in society (servitude).