- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS rules police don't need warrant to use blood drawn from unconscious drunk driver
Posted on 6/27/19 at 4:40 pm to CarRamrod
Posted on 6/27/19 at 4:40 pm to CarRamrod
quote:What? You mean you don't like the govt shoving another inch up your arse? Don't worry, the govt still got move to shove. I dont' know about you cucks, but I've had about all I can take.
thats not good
0
Posted on 6/27/19 at 4:53 pm to xxGEAUXxx
quote:
If you are arrested for DUI, under implied consent you are to provide a breath, urine or blood sample. If you refuse and the LEO gets a warrant, most states allows medical staff to physically get the sample.
The LEO didn't get a warrant in Mitchell. That's at the heart of the issue with this ruling and of Sotomayor's dissent.
To take it a step further, Wisconsin didn't even argue an exigency at the state level. They argued it was OK under their implied consent laws which essentially by operation of law make drivers on Wisconsin's roads consent to these searches.
This post was edited on 6/27/19 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 6/27/19 at 4:57 pm to arcalades
quote:
The justices have seemingly switched sides lately. The "conservatives" have lost their friggin minds.
To be fair 90% of small govt conservatives have nothing to do with small government, so theres that.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 4:58 pm to lsu2006
quote:
To take it a step further, Wisconsin didn't even argue an exigency at the state level. They argued it was OK under their implied consent laws which essentially by operation of law make drivers on Wisconsin's roads consent to these searches.
Yikes
. Admittedly I didnt read the opinion.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:00 pm to NYNolaguy1
Yeah, it's a bad, bad ruling. I actually listened to the oral arguments back in April and have been waiting anxiously to hear where SCOTUS comes down.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:00 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
To be fair 90% of small govt conservatives have nothing to do with small government, so theres that.
Its just marketing they got people to bite on. They're all about some big government when it benefits them and their donors. The bigger, the better. I cant believe anyone is naive enough to believe what any politician says. Which "side of the aisle" they're on is completely irrelevant.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:01 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
You're free to not get behind a wheel
You have an interesting version of "free".
At least there's still the land of the brave part.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:02 pm to lsu2006
quote:
Yeah, it's a bad, bad ruling.
It sounds a lot like implied consent now supplants an entire amendment of our constitution.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:09 pm to NYNolaguy1
The thing is, the Court didn't adopt and accept Wisconsin's implied consent argument, but also didn't outright reject it either. Instead they simply stated it was an exigency in this case. Major procedural and substantive problems with this ruling, considering Wisconsin conceded the lack of exigency at the state level.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:13 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
You have an interesting version of "free".
You can do it your own way, if it's done just how we say.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:15 pm to Sentrius
This ruling is horseshite on so many levels.
There is NEVER a justification for eliminating the need for a warrant. Ever.
quote:
ruled that blood can be drawn from an unconscious driver who cannot be given a breath test because it poses an urgent situation that eliminates the need for a warrant
There is NEVER a justification for eliminating the need for a warrant. Ever.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:28 pm to WeeWee
quote:I don’t think owning/renting a home/apartment isn’t mentioned in the constitution either. So I guess they don’t need to get a warrant to barge into them either right?
Driving is a privilege not a right and it is not mentioned in the constitution.
This post was edited on 6/27/19 at 5:30 pm
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:34 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Driving is a privilege not a right and it is not mentioned in the constitution.
But unreasonable search and seizure is.
This post was edited on 6/27/19 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:53 pm to Sentrius
I think it's great. frick you if you drive drunk. You're a trashy POS.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:54 pm to Centinel
I might drive through your entire family while completely hammered, but you will never take... MY BLOOD!!!! While I’m sleeping it off.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:54 pm to lsu2006
quote:
Major procedural and substantive problems with this ruling, considering Wisconsin conceded the lack of exigency at the state level.
Just as a balm to all the republicans concerned Justice Gorsuch broke liberal on them he didn't. He did not dissent with the 3 "liberal" judges but provided his own separate dissent. He was troubled as lsu2006 seems to be that the case was not decided on the application of the exigent circumstances doctrine. He would have dismissed the case as improvidently granted and waited for a case to actually argue the exigent circumstances doctrine. In essense, he says they granted cert in order to decide one issue but decided on a different set of issues that should never have been heard by the court.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:56 pm to rocksteady
quote:
I might drive through your entire family while completely hammered, but you will never take... MY BLOOD!!!! While I’m sleeping it off.
What if I told you it's possible to get a warrant while you're sleeping it off?
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:58 pm to Sentrius
There's no end to the authoritarian crap John Roberts will countenance.
Remember how easy his confirmation process was? Yeah. That dude's compromised- owned lock, stock, and barrel by the establishment / one percent / deep state / whatever your side calls it.
Just call him evil if you want. Works for me.
Remember how easy his confirmation process was? Yeah. That dude's compromised- owned lock, stock, and barrel by the establishment / one percent / deep state / whatever your side calls it.
Just call him evil if you want. Works for me.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:59 pm to Restomod
quote:
It's a drop of blood, used for blood glucose test. There is nothing to subpeana.
And now we've given leo authority to bypass this step, just to get an extra conviction.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:59 pm to WeeWee
quote:
No they ruled that implied consent laws are constitutional.
No they didn’t.
quote:
Which is the 10th amendment at work.
No it isn’t. This case has nothing to do with the 10th amendment and everything to do with the 4th. The court took it upon itself to expand the exigency exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th amendment. The exigency exception should be chipped away at as technology aides the ease of obtaining a warrant, not the other way around.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News