re: SCOTUS rules police don't need warrant to use blood drawn from unconscious drunk driver

quote:

---

It's one thing to preserve existing physical evidence like vehicle damage, gun casings, etc.

---

Correct...time is not as big of a factor because the car is not consuming the evidence...the ground is not consuming the evidence....in that case you have time to get a warrant.

quote:

---

It's quite another to take the blood from a citizen

---

Correct...because time is now a factor and waiting for a warrant could allow for the evidence to be lost.

So there is probable cause to believe their is evidence in your blood that proves you committed a crime. That evidence is being destroyed by your body which causes the exigent circumstance to preserve it without a warrant.

quote:

---

Correct...because time is now a factor and waiting for a warrant could allow for the evidence to be lost.

So there is probable cause to believe their is evidence in your blood that proves you committed a crime. That evidence is being destroyed by your body which causes the exigent circumstance to preserve it without a warrant.

---

The police never even attempted to get a warrant. They tried to get him to verbalize consent for the blood draw and he couldn't so they just said frick it and had the hospital draw his blood anyway.

If that’s how you took that I am sorry?... not how it was meant lol. I was responding to someone else’s post

quote:

---

Correct...because time is now a factor and waiting for a warrant could allow for the evidence to be lost.

So there is probable cause to believe their is evidence in your blood that proves you committed a crime. That evidence is being destroyed by your body which causes the exigent circumstance to preserve it without a warrant.

---

Would be legit, if .08 was the bottom limit for being arrested and charged for dui. Seeing as how you can be arrested, charged, and convicted for sub .08 alcohol numbers (no drugs) this is entirely moot.

I don’t want your gun centienl, I just want your motha frickin blooooooood

quote:

---

The entire concept of an "exigent circumstance" to ignore a warrant is bullshite. Period.

---

I get the spirit behind it. But in a set of facts like this one where the officers never even attempted to get a warrant I can't fathom it. The State of Wisconsin didn't even try to argue there were exigent circumstances in this case because it's a terribly weak leg to stand on with these facts. But SCOTUS took it upon itself to make and accept the argument for them.

quote:

---

Because they didn't have to....they had an exigent circumstance to preserve the evidence that was in the process of being destroyed as time went by

---

That's not how the exigency exception works. The exigency exception is centered around there being insufficient time to get a warrant due to exigent circumstances. When you never even attempt to get a warrant that argument doesn't exactly carry much weight. Hence the fact that the State of Wisconsin let that dog lie.

quote:

---

The officer should have PC to believe the person is intoxicated and due to the exigent circumstance

---

I am not being a smart arse but have you actually read the opinion? You keep talking about exigent circumstance but they did NOT decide the case on that and that is the issue troubling people.

They decided the case based on informed consent instead. The exigent circumstance doctrine has no point in this thread except it wasn't part of the opinion. In very general terms they decided that informed consent can be produced by process of law. So a law can be on the books that says if you avail yourself of a privilege (keep in mind voting is a privildge not a right) you give up certain rights. Informed consent as a doctrine can be basically detroyed in any capacity by process of law. This is scary. If they had indeed entertained and ruled on the exigent circumstance law while it would have bothered some it would not have nearly the scary potential ramifications across a broad spectrum of law.

quote:

---

The entire concept of an "exigent circumstance" to ignore a warrant is bullshite. Period.

Especially in this day and age.

It's nothing but sheer laziness on the part of the judicial system who doesn't give two fricks about a citizen's rights.

---

Disagree.

You still have the ability to attack the probable cause of the search in suppression hearings.

It would be silly in this day and age to just lose evidence simply due to a procedure when there is a check and balance of it.

quote:

---

So if you take a hit of weed on Saturday night and on Wednesday you get nailed by another car with both drivers being knocked out, you become the at fault driver with a DUI since marijuana was in your system?

frick that.

---

No, the blood sample would not show an intoxicating level of THC. Now that might cause a whole other cavalcade of issues but the DWI would not be one.