Supreme Court Rules That States Cannot Conduct DUI Blood Tests Without Warrants

23536

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
Location
Stop resisting!
NEW YORK – The ACLU welcomes today's Supreme Court decision rejecting the proposition that states may routinely compel drivers to submit to a blood test in drunk-driving cases without consent and without a warrant.

The following quote is from Steven R. Shapiro, ACLU national legal director, who represented Tyler McNeely before the Supreme Court:

We know from experience that drunk-driving laws can be strictly enforced without abandoning constitutional rights. Today's decision appropriately recognizes what half the states have already demonstrated – that maintaining highway safety does not require sacrificing personal privacy.
Click to expand...

http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-re...-mcneely-states-cannot-routinely-compel-blood
 
It seems like this is excellent news for drivers with high THC tolerances. An officer should not be able to drag you to a blood nurse just because he thinks you might test positive.
 
Wow, this is amazing!
I wonder how it is going to work?
Can they still do field sobriety tests? That makes a lot more sense to me than blood tests.
And I don't find them offensive at all.
People who are really fucked up should not be driving.
Put 'em in jail, I say.
But people who smoked weed 3 days ago should not get caught with a positive THC test.
So, this supreme court decision gets my approval. ;)
 
slimvictor said:
Can they still do field sobriety tests?
Click to expand...

It seems to just apply to any "search and seizure" as the Constitution states.

I've never had a DUI so somebody correct me if I'm wrong: they can convict you for a positive breathalyzer, but if you refuse a breathalyzer, they sometimes arrest you and force you to give them a blood sample.

You know what: forget it. The more I explain this the more I confuse myself. When is a field sobriety test not enough? Would saliva tests have the same protection as blood tests, or are they a modified breathalyzer? Once you're arrested, can't they take your blood simply because you're in custody? They already cavity searches in jail. Those seem more invasive than a needle in the cubital vein.
 
Last edited:
slimvictor said:
Wow, this is amazing!
I wonder how it is going to work?
Can they still do field sobriety tests? That makes a lot more sense to me than blood tests.
And I don't find them offensive at all.
People who are really fucked up should not be driving.
Put 'em in jail, I say.
But people who smoked weed 3 days ago should not get caught with a positive THC test.
So, this supreme court decision gets my approval. ;)
Click to expand...

I think the way THC testing is done has not yet been standardized. WA and CO are still trying to address this.

All this ruling does is ensure that probable cause is in effect before blood tests are forced on drivers, which is how it would have been in the first place if the police actually honoured the contents of the Constitution.
 
23536 said:
It seems to just apply to any "search and seizure" as the Constitution states.

I've never had a DUI so somebody correct me if I'm wrong: they can convict you for a positive breathalyzer, but if you refuse a breathalyzer, they sometimes arrest you and force you to give them a blood sample.

You know what: forget it. The more I explain this the more I confuse myself. When is a field sobriety test not enough? Would saliva tests have the same protection as blood tests, or are they a modified breathalyzer? Once you're arrested, can't they take your blood simply because you're in custody? They already cavity searches in jail. Those seem more invasive than a needle in the cubital vein.
Click to expand...

If you refuse the breathalyzer or any field tests, they will suspend your license for a year. Without any evidence (breathalyzer and field tests).. they can't make a DUI case against you. It's best to refuse. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top