Latest Breaking News

Purveyor

(29,876 posts) Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:09 AM Apr 2013

Supreme Court DUI Blood Test Ruling: Police Must Try To Obtain Search Warrant [View all]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has ruled that police must usually try to obtain a search warrant from a judge before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects.

The justices on Wednesday sided with a Missouri man who was subjected to a blood test without a warrant and found to have nearly twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said for the court that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood is generally not sufficient reason to jettison the requirement that police get a judge's approval before drawing a blood sample.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/supreme-court-dui-blood_n_3100551.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

56 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court DUI Blood Test Ruling: Police Must Try To Obtain Search Warrant [View all] Purveyor Apr 2013 OP

As usual the Obama administration is against civil liberties. forestpath Apr 2013 #1

Here is the Actual Opinion happyslug Apr 2013 #2

THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion DainBramaged Apr 2013 #3

LOL, that's the first thing I said, "Of course he did." Demit Apr 2013 #14

I suspect the driver was stopped due to erratic driving. In California still_one Apr 2013 #4

Not anymore. Socal31 Apr 2013 #47

I don't get it, try to obtain it? How do they get one at night? What happens when they cannot? bettyellen Apr 2013 #5

They call a judge. They do it all the time. The Stranger Apr 2013 #7

I have no idea. I live in an area where there is waaay too much DUI..... hot button issue for me, bettyellen Apr 2013 #8

I'm sorry for your loss. The Stranger Apr 2013 #18

thank you. impossible for me to be objective, of course. but I see / hear of lots of people bettyellen Apr 2013 #49

Your perspective is very important to the debate. The Stranger Apr 2013 #56

Thats a sentencing issue not a constitutional search one though which is the issue here. cstanleytech Apr 2013 #20

Are you seriously saying someone should be punished for exercising his rights? Comrade Grumpy Apr 2013 #24

They arent being punished for exercising their rights. cstanleytech Apr 2013 #26

May I assume you are NOT a minority who has been stopped late at night? retread Apr 2013 #42

I can see it for something invasive like a blood test Warpy Apr 2013 #27

That would be unconstitutional in the extreme. NYC Liberal Apr 2013 #32

That would be up to the courts to decide. nt cstanleytech Apr 2013 #38

I'm on my phone so I can't do much link finding but NYC Liberal Apr 2013 #39

I am not sure if that would apply. A person we are discussing is cstanleytech Apr 2013 #40

You can't punish someone for not waiving their rights NYC Liberal Apr 2013 #44

No but you can charge them with different cstanleytech Apr 2013 #53

This message was self-deleted by its author Mike Daniels Apr 2013 #9

Huh? No one said that is. bowens43 Apr 2013 #12

No, I think there has to be a better way. Laws are already too lax on repeat offenders. bettyellen Apr 2013 #15

They do that in my town. Warpy Apr 2013 #28

It seems to be a more popular/ acceptable thing in suburbia. bettyellen Apr 2013 #51

The Majority addressed your issue, and pointed out the Officer could have CALLED for a warrant happyslug Apr 2013 #16

Tks, I had no idea. Last time my brother had to get an emergency warrant (house search, child rape bettyellen Apr 2013 #52

In most areas it is quick and relatively easy to get a warrant happyslug Apr 2013 #55

It's not a civil liberty to murder someone, but that doesn't mean cops NYC Liberal Apr 2013 #29

There is a rotation of judges thart must be available at all times. pennylane100 Apr 2013 #33

If they can't hit a vein, then they beat the fuck out of you The Flaming Red Head Apr 2013 #41

Not just in Arkansas. retread Apr 2013 #43

So refuse the breath test and hope a judge can't be reached before your BAC drops? Mike Daniels Apr 2013 #6

Down here in Texas.... WaitWut Apr 2013 #10

the judges are on call at the courthouse to receive calls from the officers LanternWaste Apr 2013 #45

Ahh I see, WaitWut Apr 2013 #46

You're kidding right? Talk about BS...fuck liberty , right? bowens43 Apr 2013 #13

Your suggestion would violate the 4th amendment. former9thward Apr 2013 #23

That blanket warrant is invalid and the test results would get bounced AngryAmish Apr 2013 #31

I think that that would result in an automatic "Get out of Jail Free" Card. pennylane100 Apr 2013 #34

Yeah. Blanket pre-filled warrants for everyone! Yay! Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2013 #35

People 'would think' a lot of things that don't happen. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2013 #50

Hmm gvstn Apr 2013 #11

Implied consent...... Purplehazed Apr 2013 #19

Thanks for all the details on the validity of the impairment tests. gvstn Apr 2013 #22

Are Breathalyzers some how deficient now? apnu Apr 2013 #17

If not administered correctly, yes they may actually be deficient or cstanleytech Apr 2013 #21

Breathalyzer do NOT work, if someone refuses to breath into it, as in this case. happyslug Apr 2013 #25

Drugs. Socal31 Apr 2013 #48

Never had a DUI blood test. Never had a reason to have one. Never had even JDPriestly Apr 2013 #30

Your comment made me wonder why the cop would not get a warrant pennylane100 Apr 2013 #36

True. It isn't hard to get a warrant. I think that certain judges are assigned to be on JDPriestly Apr 2013 #37

If you can't secure a conviction with a video and a police statement then you don't deserve one. Ash_F Apr 2013 #54