Latest Breaking News

unblock

(56,252 posts)

6. what really sucks is that any victory for civil liberties here is likely to be hollow

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:09 AM

Jan 2013

i heard a snippet of oral arguments on npr. as a practical matter, requests for warrants are rarely denied.

they really just want to avoid the hassle and time delay of getting a warrant (which may only be a phone call away anyway).

if a warrant were a requirement, they could get it as a matter of course. really, on what basis would a judge deny it?

only perhaps it if was apparent that it was being overused, e.g., if a judge were bombarded with an implausibly large number of warrant requests, or repeated requests for the same suspect.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

(SCOTUS) Justices Look at Legality of Drunken-Driving Test [View all] alp227 Jan 2013 OP

How hard is it to staff for a judge AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #1

Some rural counties only have one judge Major Nikon Jan 2013 #7

In this case, there was a judge available on-call Orrex Jan 2013 #9

Can does not mean should Major Nikon Jan 2013 #11

But that's not the issue before the court Orrex Jan 2013 #13

I'm not saying that's the issue before the court Major Nikon Jan 2013 #15

I expect that they will rule that warrants must be obtained when they reasonably can be Orrex Jan 2013 #22

I vote for the other hand Riftaxe Jan 2013 #2

Okay SCOTUS may have made a good decision for a change dballance Jan 2013 #3

On New Years eve, in Tn. dotymed Jan 2013 #5

My Home State of TN Still Continues to Embarrass Me. /eom dballance Jan 2013 #25

In my opinion, that is not Constitutional. Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2013 #39

If they always had a trained nurse on hand to take the blood AAO Jan 2013 #16

Seriously That Would Make It More Legal? dballance Jan 2013 #28

Make what legal? Taking your blood with a search warrant? AAO Jan 2013 #35

Even if SCOTUS were to rule Jenoch Jan 2013 #29

I though the whole point was to do it onsite before the alcohol left their system? AAO Jan 2013 #36

I am not aware Jenoch Jan 2013 #37

What difference does it make? Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2013 #40

Well, given the way they ruled on Florence last year, I don't have much hope... Blue_Tires Jan 2013 #30

They should NOT be able to take blood from you without a warrant. Socal31 Jan 2013 #4

I have a relative who had a pretty bad stroke. He gets around just fine, but he can look a little MADem Jan 2013 #27

I wouldn't like that christx30 Jan 2013 #33

Kicking your post for truth. Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2013 #41

In other words: christx30 Jan 2013 #42

what really sucks is that any victory for civil liberties here is likely to be hollow unblock Jan 2013 #6

This oughta be interesting n/t Dr_Scholl Jan 2013 #8

Alcohol is odorless and tasteless Disconnect Jan 2013 #10

Really? I have smelled alcohol on drinkers. Evergreen Emerald Jan 2013 #12

As stated above, you do not smell the etoh but the other stuff in the booze AngryAmish Jan 2013 #14

At some point they end up smelling like a distillery. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #23

Ever try tasting 190 proof Everclear? 95% alchohol - the taste alone can kill you. AAO Jan 2013 #18

We used it to start fires when the temperture was below zero in Alaska. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #20

Ignorant statement Tempest Jan 2013 #21

Ethanol definitely has a smell. jeff47 Jan 2013 #32

If you can't secure a conviction from a jury with a video of the suspect... Ash_F Jan 2013 #17

An unlicenced, unpracticed cop taking blood. What could possibly go wrong? Tempest Jan 2013 #19

WHA?? NCthraxman Jan 2013 #24

kick samsingh Jan 2013 #26

Since driving is a privlege, not a right Kelvin Mace Jan 2013 #31

What I was most surprised by was the hospital performing the test okwmember Jan 2013 #34

Fuck them ... Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2013 #38