A discussion of the better things in life, including music, the arts, wine, beer, cigars, scotch, gambling the Quatloosian way, travel, sports, and many other topics. [Political and religious discussions and the like should stay off-site.]
The Supreme Court today ruled 5-4 that, without mitigating circumstances, a blood test cannot be forced on a drunk driver suspect without a search warrant.
that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.
Disciple of the cross and champion in suffering
Immerse yourself into the kingdom of redemption
Pardon your mind through the chains of the divine
Make way, the shepherd of fire
Every once in awhile, the US Supremes give notice that they haven't completely forgotten about civil rights, even if the rest of our government has. Good for them. And us.
This decision pretty much matches what has been the law in Montana. Our supreme court has refused to march lock step with the U.S. Supreme Court and has granted us greater rights than U.S. Fourth Amendment rights. We have a constitutional right to privacy that gives us a bit more of a right to be left alone. Warrants are required for most searches. This is a pretty good deal.
I read through the summary of the decision, and it doesn't say what you say it does....
that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.
(emphasis added)
The majority specifically did not say that an exigency did not exist in this case. as the State didn't present evidence that it did; they merely said that the per se rule the state of Missouri requested was in violation of the 4th Amendment.
This thread may also be pushing the "no politics" rule.
Last edited by Arthur Rubin on Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:thread may also be pushing the "no politics" rule.
It's pretty creepy for the authorities to be drawing blood on drunk driving suspects, I would think that behavior displayed would be sufficient grounds for any charges. For a long period of time alcohol consumption was part of life, even judges imbibed during the day and as long as people could function in their capacities, it wasn't considered a terrible stigma that it has become in this zero tolerance age. The old saying that a good DA could indict a ham sandwich, and that is quite true if you dig deep enough you can indict pretty much anyone.
'There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)
'Choose loss rather than shameful gains.' (Chilon Fr. 10. Diels)
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!