Supreme Court signals blood tests protected by Fourth Amendment

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Supreme Court signals blood tests protected by Fourth Amendment


usnews. nbcnews.com

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
wow i had not even know they were ruling on this as this could have huge ramifications for dui arrests and might even result in some being overturned or lawsuits being filed by those who had their blood drawn with out a warrent.

while no where near a fan of drunk driving it does seem that the courts did uphold the 4th amendment in the case it seems now that people pulled over can simply try to refuse the breath test knowing they cant be blood tested(probably still lose their liscence but never have there BAC on their record)

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 decision
edit 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_test
edit on 9-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
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).



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


I think that their drivers license could be considered a contractual agreement, and by entering into that agreement, absconding from it could come with huge civil penalties. Either way, drunk drivers will get whats coming to them.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


no the ruling was on the fact that the cops CANT do it due to the 4th amendment so i would assume they will try to come up with a new way or a different method to get around the ruling



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

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 decision
edit 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_test
edit on 9-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)


What state do you live in? I need to remember to NEVER move there. The day a urine test is required to get a DL is the day I will no longer have one. What is in my pee is no one's business but mine and I will NEVER submit to one unless under a court order. Period.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by onthedownlow
 


true but isnt entering in a contract that has unconstitutional parts in it not voided? im alittle out of my element with this one as law is not my forte but still hoping atleast to get some more information on this to find how exactly how big or how small this is gonna end up being as far as rulings go



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
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

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.
www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com... and

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.
legallad.quickanddirtytips.com... that link is a better example of what i was trying to say

edit on 9-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Makes sense, constitutionally.

I mean, when blood is generally drawn it is with consent, and once consent is given there is no need for a warrant; however, if, say, in the instance of a crash, and the suspect is in the hospital, unconscious or sedated, it is normal to draw and test blood, the constitutionality which could be argued, and was the basis for Missouri v. McNeely:


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.


Had the SCOTUS ruled that it WAS constitutional to draw blood (forceably or not), then the cops would be holding people down to get samples. They can't force people to blow, regardless of Scalia's argument

"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.
It's physically difficult, nigh impossible, to force someone to blow, but not to forcefully draw blood.

Good call by the Supreme Court.

I, for one, DO have faith in the Supreme Court over most things.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


thank you for your reply and insight i too think this is a win for personal liberties and it gives me a bit more faith in the supreme court as a whole,what i am more curious about is what the unforseen implications of this ruling will have will it now be legal to refuse a Breathalyzer and not loose your drivers license now?or does this ruling only apply to blood draws,and what if any effect will it have on drivers lisences and the things we have to sign to ear our "privilege" to drive.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

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

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.
www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com... and

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.
legallad.quickanddirtytips.com... that link is a better example of what i was trying to say

edit on 9-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)


You sign (basically) a contract with the state to get your license saying that you will submit to testing, what, only in suspected DUI cases, or in general as far as LEO and motor vehicles are concerned?

That's a crazy law.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


Here in GA we can refuse all we want but there are automatic penalties (license suspended in ten days unless a hearing is requested, etc) due to the nature in keeping our (criminal) privacy in the event of a suspected DUI. We are afforded the right to refuse.

This Montana law is curiously sinister, contract with the state to sign away your right to receive a privilege to drive.

That link about DUIs is pretty interesting to. I would argue one DOES have the right to refuse; however, one does not (but should) have the right to refuse to identify oneself to LEO, so i can kinda see the rationale behind that duidefense link. :/
edit on 9-1-2013 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Just because you are asked to sign away your rights by a DMV does not mean you lose those rights. Contracts can ask for all kinds of things that are patently in violation of ones rights. Your rights are intact regardless of an illegal contract.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
i post this very tentatively in the hopes i dont offend the Ats overlords but with this ruling it also seems that the door is now closed to give out dui's in Washington and Colorado for use of the Voldemort of the plant world on ats(the plant that shall not be named) due to the fact that now according to supreme court you cant be forced to give a blood test......so i think the unforseen consequences are gonna be the biggest ones from this ruling



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Mamatus
 


thank you for the clarification and your reply,i had always thought that they interpreted the right to drive as a privilege though and that's how they got around it (ie you sign over your rights for a PRIVILEGE to drive or whatnot)

like i said law is not exactly my strong suit so if you know better then me on this id be very thankful for a reply and or correction



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


i most likely explained my self improperly what i was basically trying to say is that with the dui laws being what they are when you get a license you basically agree to submit to these methods of dui detection or they dont issue you a license and as you pointed out if you do refuse they automatically take your license

so maby calling it a law perse was wrong on my part but i member being told in state and local class back in ca if we didn't sign it we wouldn't get our drivers licenses and im pretty sure it works like that in all states if you refuse to blow they arrest you any ways and take your license away for a year

was more wondering what effect this ruling will have on the contracts or whatnot that we have to sign to get our licenses to drive

additionally commercial drivers have been drug tested randomly for years to maintain their special licenses.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Could work for your breath too since they search your breath for alcohol. You can refuse to give them your bodily fluids. They would have to have a judge on duty 24/7 just for DUI warrants. Smell is probable cause from what I hear. Might get interesting.
edit on 9-1-2013 by marbles87 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
You should note a couple of things.

www.supremecourt.gov... link to a pdf on the full text of the decision
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.

Second, the Court always attacks both sides in oral arguments. Remember all the newspaper accounts saying the Court was signaling that Obamacare was unconstitutional? We can't know how the Court will rule. There has been no decision. So don't get excited one way or the other.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   

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).


What the change in the implied consent law did was allow for a required blood test when involved in an accident and alcohol is suspected as being a factor. It means that instead requesting a sample, which can be done at any time (and is up to the person being asked to comply or refuse), a blood draw would be required for an accident.

Absent an accident the dame standard applies, which is to say an officer must have reasonable suspicion and then probable cause in order to request a person consent to a test under implied consent.

Currently the only way an officer can get a blood sample in MO without express consent is if the person is A. the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident and B. the person is unconcious.

edit on 10-1-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4

log in

join