Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Blood tests protected under 4th Amendment says Supreme Court

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267

    Blood tests protected under 4th Amendment says Supreme Court

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...amendment?lite

    Justices indicated Wednesday that the dangers of drunken driving don't trump the Fourth Amendment, peppering lawyers for the state of Missouri with objections to their request that the Supreme Court allow law enforcement to order blood tests for DUI without suspects' consent.

    The case, Missouri v. McNeely, is seen as a landmark that could clear up almost 50 years of uncertainty over the constitutionality of blood tests that are conducted without a warrant. Legal scholars say it could rewrite drunken-driving laws in all 50 states.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    IANAL, but what does this do to "implied consent"? Is that concept gone?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    In their infinite wisdom the State of Idaho has determined that your driver license is consent to this violation of your body.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Reeeeead the transcript .... appears as if SCOTUS will rule against the taking of blood w/o consent or a warrant. A DUI case.

    Of course, the court may rule otherwise..
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-09-2013 at 07:01 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Corryton
    Posts
    85
    Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the 4th amendment protections end with "reasonable suspicion"?

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    The damned thread title is misleading. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this yet.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Z1P2 View Post
    Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the 4th amendment protections end with "reasonable suspicion"?
    No, the courts have this stuff contorted all sorts of ways.


    Basically, the current legal theory runs something like this:

    The 4A only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures (guess who gets to define unreasonable).
    All warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable unless they fall under an already-recognized exception to the warrant clause.
    Some examples of exceptions:
    border searches
    exigent circumstances
    community caretaking
    officer safety
    automobile (because its moveable)
    etc
    From there the courts just create loopholes...um...find ways to apply existing exceptions to new things the cops wanta get away with.


    A good place to start is with Wikipedia. Yes, their articles have a reputation for errors; but their legal articles have tons of cites--you can spend hours digging into the references provided if you have a mind to.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Sorcice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    382

    Blood tests protected under 4th Amendment says Supreme Court

    In some states like CA on the back of my old lic it stated something to the effect of "if you want to drive you agree to all blood tests given by Leo's." kind of like accepting a EULA.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorcice View Post
    In some states like CA on the back of my old lic it stated something to the effect of "if you want to drive you agree to all blood tests given by Leo's." kind of like accepting a EULA.
    Take that to its logical conclusion: you agree to accept warrantless search of your property or person at any time for any reason. Refusal voids your driver's license.

    SCOTUS thinks that reasoning is A-OK. I would not place money on them slapping down something like the previous paragraph.

  10. #10
    Regular Member MagiK_SacK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    VA Beach, VA
    Posts
    264

    Blood tests protected under 4th Amendment says Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    A good place to start is with Wikipedia. Yes, their articles have a reputation for errors; but their legal articles have tons of cites--you can spend hours digging into the references provided if you have a mind to.
    I have discovered scholar.google.com to be a good resource for court decisions as well.
    .45 ACP - Because shooting twice is silly

    A cop pulled me over and said, "Papers..." So I said "Scissors, I win!" and drove away.

  11. #11
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    No, the courts have this stuff contorted all sorts of ways.


    Basically, the current legal theory runs something like this:

    The 4A only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures (guess who gets to define unreasonable).
    All warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable unless they fall under an already-recognized exception to the warrant clause.
    Some examples of exceptions:
    border searches
    exigent circumstances
    community caretaking
    officer safety
    automobile (because its moveable)
    etc
    From there the courts just create loopholes...um...find ways to apply existing exceptions to new things the cops wanta get away with.


    A good place to start is with Wikipedia. Yes, their articles have a reputation for errors; but their legal articles have tons of cites--you can spend hours digging into the references provided if you have a mind to.
    Vehicles are protected under the Fourth Amendment as well, just not as protected as one's home.

    The only time an officer can search a vehicle is if a K-9 has alerted to the presence of narcotics (which is beyond ridiculous), they observe an illegal item in "plain view," they have the driver's or owner's permission, or if they are documenting contents when impounded. The only other way an officer can legally search the vehicle is if he has "probable cause." These instances have been deemed not to be unreasonable.

    This of course is not in-line with the intent of the Fourth Amendment, but when judges can be bought so easily the government can make the Constitution and Bill of Rights whatever the money makes it in the justices' eyes.
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 01-11-2013 at 10:29 PM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    Vehicles are protected under the Fourth Amendment as well, just not as protected as one's home.

    The only time an officer can search a vehicle is if a K-9 has alerted to the presence of narcotics (which is beyond ridiculous), they observe an illegal item in "plain view," they have the driver's or owner's permission, or if they are documenting contents when impounded. The only other way an officer can legally search the vehicle is if he has "probable cause." These instances have been deemed not to be unreasonable.

    This of course is not in-line with the intent of the Fourth Amendment, but when judges can be bought so easily the government can make the Constitution and Bill of Rights whatever the money makes it in the justices' eyes.
    Cites, please. Please include cite(s) for "the only time."

    (Hint. There is a reason I didn't elaborate on the automobile exception to the warrant clause.)
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-11-2013 at 10:42 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    As I commented in my local newspaper:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

    I would have to say that if "their persons" means anything at all, it absolutely means security from being bodily invaded and having physical evidence seized without permission or warrant.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    As I commented in my local newspaper:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

    I would have to say that if "their persons" means anything at all, it absolutely means security from being bodily invaded and having physical evidence seized without permission or warrant.
    +1
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    OP, posted in Hot Topics. Firearm or OC related? Even tangentially? Have not had coffee yet this morning.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    OP, posted in Hot Topics. Firearm or OC related? Even tangentially? Have not had coffee yet this morning.
    Fourth Amendment case law is always relevant to being able to legally open carry without interference.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •