- 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 6:04 pm to buckeye_vol
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:04 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I don’t think owning/renting a home/apartment isn’t mentioned in the constitution either.
I'd reread the 3rd amendment
quote:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
0
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:04 pm to bayourougebengal
I don't see the big deal with this.
You have implied consent and exigent circumstances....seems like a commonsense approach....Draw the blood then you can argue why it should be in-admissible in a suppression hearing.
This just allows police to preserve evidence.
Really by now if you drive drunk you are an idiot....call a friggin Uber or something.
You have implied consent and exigent circumstances....seems like a commonsense approach....Draw the blood then you can argue why it should be in-admissible in a suppression hearing.
This just allows police to preserve evidence.
Really by now if you drive drunk you are an idiot....call a friggin Uber or something.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:05 pm to Cosmo
quote:
Hospitals do stuff to unconscious people all the time without consent
Only to save your life or prevent you getting worse.
What medical benefit does one get from having the cops take their blood???
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:05 pm to theenemy
quote:
Draw the blood then you can argue why it should be in-admissible in a suppression hearing.
This just allows police to preserve evidence.
Unreasonable search and seizure. "Allowing the police to preserve evidence" is not justification to ignore the 4th.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:06 pm to Centinel
I’d have to imagine the good would far outweigh the bad in all situations here. You got diamonds in that blood?
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:12 pm to Centinel
quote:
Unreasonable search and seizure. "Allowing the police to preserve evidence" is not justification to ignore the 4th.
No....The officer should have PC to believe the person is intoxicated and due to the exigent circumstance (the body is metabolizing the evidence) they can preserve the evidence (the blood) before the body can fully metabolize it.
I don't see how that is unreasonable.
This post was edited on 6/27/19 at 6:16 pm
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:12 pm to TH03
quote:
Absolutely. If this is at the discretion of the cop, this will easily be abused with little to nothing in the way to stop it.
Fixed that for you.
This is a terrible decision by the court.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:12 pm to rocksteady
quote:
I’d have to imagine the good would far outweigh the bad in all situations here.
That’s not how our nation is supposed to work.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:13 pm to rocksteady
quote:
I’d have to imagine the good would far outweigh the bad in all situations here.
You don't understand the concepts of individual rights very well do you?
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:14 pm to Sao
quote:quote:
Blood tests are the only way to reliably test the alcohol level consumed by (unconscious) drivers, Alita wrote.
Best believe I'm going to quote Sam on this if I'm ever asked to breathalyze.
Unfortunately, that word "unconscious" is going to present you problems when you start quoting it.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:15 pm to theenemy
quote:
and due to the exigent circumstance (the body is metabolizing the evidence) to preserve the evidence (the blood) before the body can fully metabolize it.
You think, in this day and age, it's not possible to get a warrant prior to the body of an extremely intoxicated person metabolizing it all?
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:15 pm to theenemy
quote:
I don't see how that is unreasonable.
Because getting a warrant is fricking easy. Especially in 2019 when literally everyone has a phone in their pocket.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:20 pm to lsu2006
quote:
Because getting a warrant is fricking easy. Especially in 2019 when literally everyone has a phone in their pocket.
Not true.
In a few places, they have judges that stay on it pretty fast.....but most jurisdictions it still takes time.
But even with warrants....courts have ruled that you can preserve evidence so that it isn't lost while in the process of applying for a warrant.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:21 pm to Centinel
I understand perfectly. You can’t seem to conceptulize scene of accident and unconscious. You’re arguing that it will be abused, I’d rather err on the side of caution and common sense and let the lawyers do what they do with all the other laws? Yeah?happens everyday, this one seems like a no brainer common sense, and you seem like a no brainer. Let’s go over it again. Scene of accident, unconscious human, driving car... lets picture it in our heads together.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:22 pm to lsu2006
quote:
Because getting a warrant is fricking easy. Especially in 2019 when literally everyone has a phone in their pocket.
And to add....not all jurisdictions use electronic warrants....it is the judge's discretion whether or not they will accept electronic warrants.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:23 pm to theenemy
quote:
courts have ruled that you can preserve evidence
It's one thing to preserve existing physical evidence like vehicle damage, gun casings, etc.
It's quite another to take the blood from a citizen against their consent without a warrant, and even worse, while in a state where they are not even able to give consent.
This post was edited on 6/27/19 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:24 pm to theenemy
quote:
But even with warrants....courts have ruled that you can preserve evidence so that it isn't lost while in the process of applying for a warrant.
Right, it's the exigent circumstances exception to the 4th amendment requirement of a warrant.... at least I think that's what youre trying to discuss... The cops in Mitchell never attempted to get a warrant. The State of Wisconsin didn't urge there was an exigent circumstance to necessitate drawing blood without a warrant. But the court took it upon itself to expand the exigency exception in this case anyway.
This post was edited on 6/27/19 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:27 pm to Sentrius
Don’t pass out behind the wheel and this shouldn’t matter one bit to you
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:28 pm to rocksteady
quote:
Scene of accident, unconscious human, driving car... lets picture it in our heads together.
Except that doesnt fit the facts of this case at all. He was walking in a grassy area near a body of water and his van was parked nearby. Cops were called on suspicion that he was driving drunk. They gave him a breathalyzer with a non-evidentiary grade breathalyzer. Were in the process of taking him in and wanted to give him a breathalyzer with an evidentiary-grade one, he was nodding off and too drunk to do so. Also was too drunk to verbally consent to having his blood drawn. Took him to the hospital to draw blood. Never sought a warrant.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:28 pm to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
quote:
Don’t pass out behind the wheel and this shouldn’t matter one bit to you
If you've never done anything illegal, you should have no problem with the police searching you or your property.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News