Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Can Make You Leave Your Fourth Amendment Rights at the DMV

[gotbeer]

Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Can Make You Leave Your Fourth Amendment Rights at the DMV

 

Very interesting case.  Can have ramifications everywhere depending on which direction it goes.

[mtangelsfan]

F that.  They can take your ability to drive from you but cannot subject you to a medical procedure.  That is stinking crazy.

 

Thankfully, I live 11 miles from that stupid state.

[nate]

Talk about BS.  Warantless being the key word there.

[Schildog]

driving isn't a privilege. it's a ****ing necessity. 

 

edit: would any of us actually drive if you didn't have to?

Edited April 21, 2016 by Schildog

[Blarg]

I love driving for pleasure.

[Spirit]

+1

[Tank]

+2, as long as the traffic isn't a problem.

 

 

 

privilege vs. right. this is going to get interesting.

[mtangelsfan]

it shouldn't matter whether it is a privilege or a right.  The police/government should never be able to force a medical procedure/blood test of any kind without a warrant.

 

This is insanity that anyone could think this is ok.

[Rico]

Sounds like a bunch of drunk drivers trying to get away with drunk driving.

[mtangelsfan]

Sounds like a bunch of drunk drivers trying to get away with drunk driving.

 

You are for this rico?

 

That is crazy.

[Rico]

I like how California handles this.  In California you can refuse, unless you are actually arrested first.

[Blarg]

I have no problem with a breathalyzer test to determine if erratic driving is caused by intoxication. In fact it plays in an innocent defendants cause that a police officers opinion is not as compelling as physical evidence.

Otherwise cuffs go on and the court case becomes an officers impression based on experience and training over a defendant with no recourse than story telling.

It creates accountability on both sides.

[mtangelsfan]

Man, if I can't trust a lib to care about the Constitution, who can I trust?

 

and that California rule just causes the cops to be quicker to arrest folks.  Crap, I don't even drink and I think this is beyond horrible.  Its like we've all taken crazy pills.

[Rico]

 

and that California rule just causes the cops to be quicker to arrest folks.  

I see it the other way around.  They still need to show probably cause to arrest someone.  Also if they arrest someone and they come up clean on tests that opens them up to false arrest lawsuits.

[mtangelsfan]

those rarely succeed and cost the person suing a bunch of money.  The cops can pretty much always come up with some reason to arrest someone.

[HaloMagic]

If you have erratic driving and refuse to clear yourself through submitting to a breathalyzer in the field that is practically the definition of probable cause. I'm not sure how to solve it from there but I wouldn't mind revoking someones right to drive permanently in lieu of forcing a blood test. Don't want to help clear yourself? Now you can never drive again.

[nate]

The point is, if you have enough probably cause to arrest someone, arrest them and then take the blood test.

 

This is all about cops trying to protect themselves.  They don't want to arrest someone for drunk driving only to find out they aren't even remotely drunk and then get sued for being assholes.

[ten ocho recon scout]

This isnt a 4th amendment issue...

The 4th amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure...it does not protect you from search incident to arrest.

The author shoots himself in the foot when he specifically points out a warrantless search is valid for preservation of evidence. The BAC IS evidence...and there is obviously an exigency to preserve it (before its metabolized), which again, is an exemption to the 4th amendment.

Where the 4th amendment would protect you is if you are stopped simply to obtain a chemical sample. IE there was no suspicion of any crime prior to the stop. If during the course of investigation the officer suspects DUI, and has probable cause to arrest, he also has a right to take custody of evidence of the crime. Where a warrant would be required would be if it wasnt a fresh crime, no exigency. Again, there is an exigency to obtaining the BAC.

The trade off would be going to court and having the evidence be based soley on the cops testimony....no chemical sample retained? Well defendant, prove you werent over the legal limit. That doesnt work either, does it?

Ive never been a big DUI guy, and i can read someones BAC almost to a T based on the eyes alone. Once you understand nystagmus its pretty easy. The SFSTs, PAS device etc are just to support the suspicion. Once the driver is in custody, we offer a blood or breath sample, and we specifically explain that a blood sample can be retained for further testing by their attorney, whereas breath cant be. The reason being that if the blood shows youre below the limit, the case is dropped.

At any rate, where we're at today is when a person refuses to submit a sample, we then obtain a ramey warrant. Its a giant ass waste of time...simply to get to where it was going to go the whole time.

[mtangelsfan]

Sorry ten ocho, this is the epitome of a Fourth Amendment issue.

 

If you want to put a needle in somebody, get an f'n warrant.  That is how it is supposed to work.  Anything else is all noisy bullshit.  

[ten ocho recon scout]

Based on what? The blood IS the evidence of the crime....its specifically stated that exclusions to the 4th amendment include preservation of evidence in exigency. No different than if i watch you rob someone, and you run into your house, i dont need a warrant to run in after you to arrest you. (Frsh pursuit)

http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/152

Thats from the 9th circuit, which is by far one of the most liberal courts in the country which routinely overturns convictions. "Destruction of evidence"..

[mtangelsfan]

Based on what? The blood IS the evidence of the crime....its specifically stated that exclusions to the 4th amendment include preservation of evidence in exigency. No different than if i watch you rob someone, and you run into your house, i dont need a warrant to run in after you to arrest you. (Frsh pursuit)

http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/152

Thats from the 9th circuit, which is by far one of the most liberal courts in the country which routinely overturns convictions. "Destruction of evidence"..

 

Those examples don't even come close to what this case is about.  Forcing a medical procedure on someone without a judges approval is disgusting.  Do you really believe the police should have that much power?  There is a reason warrants are necessary.  The founders knew that officials could be wrong, power hungry, or simply corrupt.

 

We have judges for a reason, to make sure due process is followed.  If you want to this why have warrants at all.  If the police feel they should be able to search a house, just do it.  If they feel like someone looks shifty just toss them in jail.  If they want to tap an entire neighborhood's phones, go ahead.  

 

You guys can be the final arbiters of justice.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Did you even read the link i posted about the exclusions of the 4th amendment by the constitution? It specifically states exigency in preserving evidence...if the hangup is the blood draw, a breath test is just as valid. Is that some wacky procedure?

Being that the amendment itself states "reasonable search", and the law states BAC over 0.08....how besides obtaining a sample of the BAC would you be able to prove the crime?

If the blood draw is eliminated, and the only option is breath, would you still have a hangup with it? The only reason both are options is that a blood draw can be retained and the defense can independently test it. Breath cant be saved.