• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Blood tests protected under 4th Amendment says Supreme Court

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,281
Location
Montana
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/09/16434361-supreme-court-signals-blood-tests-protected-by-fourth-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.
 

carracer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
1,108
Location
Nampa, Idaho, USA
In their infinite wisdom the State of Idaho has determined that your driver license is consent to this violation of your body.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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:

Z1P2

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
85
Location
Corryton
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the 4th amendment protections end with "reasonable suspicion"?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Sorcice

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Madison, WI
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.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
375
Location
Phoenix, AZ
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.
 

MagiK_SacK

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
257
Location
VA Beach, VA
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.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,723
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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
 
Top