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 8:00 pm to
Posted by theenemy
Member since Oct 2006
13078 posts
Posted on 6/27/19 at 8:00 pm to
quote:

You both should post more on the Poliboard. More civilized discussion is needed to say the least.



Too much red v blue fighting.

But I enjoy a good discussion on criminal law though.
This post was edited on 6/27/19 at 8:01 pm
Posted by ForeverEllisHugh
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2016
16190 posts
Posted on 6/27/19 at 8:08 pm to
Time to burn it all to the ground.

You shouldn’t need a license to drive and you have to be REALLY drunk for it to make a difference. The buzzed driving hand wringers are morons.
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
44280 posts
Posted on 6/27/19 at 8:11 pm to
quote:


Too much red v blue fighting.


Which is why I said you should both post there.

I don't agree with you on this subject, but your arguments have been concise, rational, and logical. There is a distinct lack of that on that forum...on both sides.

Posted by theenemy
Member since Oct 2006
13078 posts
Posted on 6/27/19 at 8:22 pm to
quote:

Centinel


Posted by SoulGlo
Shinin' Through
Member since Dec 2011
17248 posts
Posted on 6/27/19 at 8:56 pm to
quote:

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.



Can they test for levels now? Only a couple years ago one of the arguments against legalization was that there's no way to test levels for cops. They can only test presence in system.
Posted by HailToTheChiz
Back in Auburn
Member since Aug 2010
53768 posts
Posted on 6/27/19 at 9:17 pm to
quote:

Another bad decision from SCOTUS. They're on a roll today.


No kidding.

What a shite ruling
Posted by Tortious
ATX
Member since Nov 2010
5660 posts
Posted on 6/27/19 at 9:52 pm to
quote:

quote:
When you never even attempt to get a warrant that argument doesn't exactly carry much weight.


Is an attempt required?


Should be. This isn't about DUI. It's about the foundation for the expansion of this precedent to other things. This ruling eventually will not just be a driving while drunk thing and that's what most who are upset about it are taking to. It's bad.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 8 of 8Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram