18 votes

The Supremes got it right

Warrant Needed To Take Blood In DUI Cases

In a case that could have nationwide implications in the enforcement of marijuana impaired “drugged driving” laws, the United States Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states can not routinely compel drivers to submit to a blood test in drunk driving cases without consent and without a warrant.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
egapele's picture

Law enforcers consider this a good score - needle danger

One of many commentaries I have seen on this topic:

Drug needle dangers
By Kyle Rountree

Among the occupational hazards that exist for the law enforcement officers of our communities, used syringes and needles are often not considered.

Guns, knives, and other weapons often come to mind, but the dangers of drug paraphernalia are often not given adequate consideration in terms of the dangers that they pose to the brave men and women who serve our communities as law enforcement officers.

Inadvertent needle sticks are no joke. Any health care worker knows this. In fact, any student training to become a health care worker knows this.

Link: http://www.thedurhamnews.com/2013/02/12/214666/drug-needle-d...

The tide is turning

Guys, I know this site is often filled with pessimism and paranoia (you know who you are), but you have to admit, the tide is turning. Remember, the government reflects the morality of the people. And even though the Supreme Court is not elected, they too will come to reflect the mainstream opinion.

So when things like this happen, it's not in a vacuum. It's because of the tireless efforts of Dr. Paul and all of you to spread the message of liberty. The brush fires are burning. We are winning. Keep up the good work, still a long way to go.

I feel so

Warm and fuzzy inside.

Don't poke me, bro!

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Nice.

They've gotten a couple right lately.

robot999's picture

Now what about

MJ? Here in CO, they passed a 5 nanogram blood limit. I think they can take blood whenever they "suspect" you of driving under the influence of MJ. Anyone know for sure?

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

DOA

Marijuana: THC driving bill reaches senate committee next week -- right after 4/20

The current incarnation of Colorado House Bill 1114, the THC driving bill gained House approval earlier this month and is headed for the Senate Judiciary Committee next Monday, April 22, after the 4/20 weekend.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/04/marijuana_thc_d...

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

Never, ever, ever, ever consent.

Challenge the credentials of anyone and everyone who attempts to ASSAULT and BATTER you. Be polite, but firm.
MEDICAL ETHICS still matter. There is NO EXCUSE to perform DANGEROUS medical procedures on a person who is NOT ILL. It's just a needle stick you say? If they hit a nerve, you're never going to be the same.
Furthermore, there is NO FOUNDATION for that 5 ng limit, it is arbitrary and capricious - there are no studies showing that the "average person" becomes a danger behind the wheel at that level.
Someone will wind up having to go to the Supreme Court over it, but it needs CHALLENGED. What they test for is NOT EVEN MARIJUANA. They test for metabolites which show a PAST exposure to marijuana, it gives NO reliable indication of current impairment.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

The Law in question in your state would be...

§ 42-4-1301(6)(e)

Involuntary blood test - admissibility. Evidence acquired through an involuntary blood test pursuant to section 42-4-1301.1(3) shall be admissible in any prosecution for DUI, DUI per se, DWAI, habitual user, or UDD, and in any prosecution for criminally negligent homicide pursuant to section 18-3-105, C.R.S., vehicular homicide pursuant to section 18-3-106(1) (b), C.R.S., assault in the third degree pursuant to section 18-3-204, C.R.S., or vehicular assault pursuant to section 18-3-205(1) (b), C.R.S.

http://search.jurisearch.com/NLLXML/getcode.asp?datatype=S&c...

Here is § 42-4-1301.1(3)

If a law enforcement officer requests a test under this paragraph (a), the person must cooperate with the request such that the sample of blood or breath can be obtained within two hours of the person's driving.

http://search.jurisearch.com/NLLXML/getcode.asp?datatype=S&s...

~Good Night, And Good Luck~

I don't think they can do

I don't think they can do anything to you if you are under the influence of Micheal Jordan, but I'm not from Colorado. If you are taking about marijuana on the other hand, then they will most certainly try anything they can for you to consent to the blood test. Just don't give them an "exigency" to do so. Here is the meat of the opinion (having only skimmed the ruling):

"In Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), this Court upheld a warrant less blood test of an individual arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol because the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay neces­sary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threat­ened the destruction of evidence.” Id., at 770 (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for non-consensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases. We conclude that it does not, and we hold, consistent with general Fourth Amendment principles, that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances."

I conclude that since the natural metabolization rate of marijuana is much long than alcohol they could never prove there is a "exigency" to take your blood on the account you are driving under the influence and present a danger to the general public and there is a risk of evidence will be destroyed, before the warrant could be issued.

If they pull you over in Colorado, or any state for that matter, and you are under the influence of marijuana do not consent to a blood test. If after that they say there is a "exigency" or emergency to get your blood, let them know again, YOU DO NOT CONSENT, but let them take the blood. You will have a case, then, to argue that it violated your Four Amendment and you can make Colorado pay. If you were so bold to take it to court.

Know that even though the US Supreme Court ruled in this mans favor from Missouri, you are not in Missouri and you are not under the influence of alcohol. It's a whole new case.

"...that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances."

If you have the Balls, maybe you would like to be a proverbial guinea pig for the Colorado Law. Study much and calculate the right time you wish to be caught to challenge the law. If you pull it off, You would be a God among men, in this movement anyway.

Take a look at this to get a better understanding of how the courts could rule in regards to your question.

It was written 12 years after the case the supreme court mentioned in their opinion yesterday.

~Good Night, And Good Luck~