Latest Breaking News

Major Nikon

(36,925 posts)

11. Can does not mean should

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:07 AM

Jan 2013

If judges can be expected to be on-call 24 hours per day for routine things like BAC blood tests and are only a phone call away, then probable cause would never apply to anything because the same standard could apply to any search. The constitution doesn't protect you from all searches, just unreasonable ones. If people were being pulled over at drunk roadblocks and being asked for blood samples without probable cause, it might be one thing, but I don't think that's the case anywhere. I'd much rather see the court establish federal guidelines for what constitutes probable cause rather than creating some system of on-call judges to rubber stamp everything the police do.

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