- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Supreme Court hears oral arguments over warrantless breathalyzers
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:26 am
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:26 am
NPR
No one should be held criminally liable for asserting their rights.
quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether police must get a warrant before forcing a driver to submit to a blood alcohol or breath test. All 50 states have laws that allow revocation of a driver's license for such a refusal. But a dozen states and the federal government have additional laws that provide criminal punishment – jail terms – for such refusals.
The states concede that breath tests and blood draws each constitute a "search" of a person's body and normally, under the Constitution, a search requires a warrant. But the question before the court was whether states can get around the warrant requirement by enacting laws that making it a crime to refuse to submit to a test.
quote:
Three defendants from North Dakota and Minnesota are challenging their convictions for refusing to take either a blood alcohol or breath test. Their lawyer, Charles Rothfeld, told the justices that the fundamental problem with the statutes at issue here is that they make it a crime to assert a constitutional right – namely, the right to be free from a bodily search unless the police get a warrant.
quote:
Lawyer Thomas McCarthy, representing North Dakota, tried to tell the justices that they would be putting the states "in a terrible bind" if search warrants were to become required for these tests.
Justices, both liberal and conservative, pounced.
quote:
So that excuses you from a constitutional requirement?" said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "We're now going to bend the Fourth Amendment" to "give a pass to North Dakota?"
No one should be held criminally liable for asserting their rights.
27
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:29 am to NYNolaguy1
Stop listening to NPR, Nina Totenberg.
And that purse does not go with those shoes.
Oral arguments/breathalyzer.
And that purse does not go with those shoes.
Oral arguments/breathalyzer.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:32 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
No one should be held criminally liable for asserting their rights.
This
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:33 am to soccerfüt
quote:
Stop listening to NPR, Nina Totenberg.
And that purse does not go with those shoes.
Oral arguments/breathalyzer.
Washington Post
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:34 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "We're now going to bend the Fourth Amendment" to "give a pass to North Dakota?"
Always makes me happy when someone with liberal tendencies gets it right. I hope the states get their asses handed to them on this, they are nothing but a bunch of money hungry bullies when it comes to DWIs and checkpoints.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:34 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Lawyer Thomas McCarthy, representing North Dakota, tried to tell the justices that they would be putting the states "in a terrible bind" if search warrants were to become required for these tests.
Well boo fricking hoo
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:35 am to NYNolaguy1
That attourney's assertion is what's wrong with our country today. I'm very proud of our justices for recognizing that the constitution and the rights therein were put in place to protect us from that exact kind of attitude. The constitution is SUPPOSED to put the government "in a bind"
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:37 am to Quatre Pot
quote:
That attourney's assertion is what's wrong with our country today. I'm very proud of our justices for recognizing that the constitution and the rights therein were put in place to protect us from that exact kind of attitude. The constitution is SUPPOSED to put the government "in a bind"
It does seem like our Supreme Court earned their paycheck yesterday.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:39 am to NYNolaguy1
The article in the OP doesn't go into it, but there was an entertaining article about the poor performance of two attorneys during oral arguments in this case.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:42 am to NYNolaguy1
This could be huge. Add a half hour - 2 hours for police to obtain a warrant and most people that would have been barely over the limit will be under it, but the seriously drunk people will still be drunk and get their punishment
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:44 am to NYNolaguy1
If they can get around the constitution by making it a crime to not submit to a warrantless search while in your car, the they can do it anywhere, anytime. Basically to uphold these laws the SCOTUS would be making the 4th amendment null and void. They've got to overturn these laws.
The only downside though is that without the ability to administer roadside tests, we will probably see a rise in drunk driving related deaths. Still, even having said that, these laws are a clear violation of the constitution and cannot stand.
The only downside though is that without the ability to administer roadside tests, we will probably see a rise in drunk driving related deaths. Still, even having said that, these laws are a clear violation of the constitution and cannot stand.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:45 am to NYNolaguy1
I am not a legal scholar so correct me as necessary.
Did the lawyer for North Dakota really use the old "we don't want to abide by the Constitution because it is a pain in the arse" argument?
I wish they had Blood pressure monitors on all of the Justices when he did that.
Did the lawyer for North Dakota really use the old "we don't want to abide by the Constitution because it is a pain in the arse" argument?
I wish they had Blood pressure monitors on all of the Justices when he did that.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:48 am to NYNolaguy1
If only they took the second amendment as seriously
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:48 am to TigerattheU
quote:
"Justice Sotomayor is assuming that you’re going to lose,” Alito quips, filling the silence. “So she wants to know what your reaction is to that.”
All the justices laugh hysterically, including Sotomayor, who looks down the bench at Alito with a fond grin. Keena stays absolutely stone-faced.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:48 am to Upperdecker
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/21/16 at 7:10 am
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:51 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Lawyer Thomas McCarthy, representing North Dakota, tried to tell the justices that they would be putting the states "in a terrible bind" if search warrants were to become required for these tests.
Meaning they will have to find another way to screw their citizens out of money, lots and lots of money
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:51 am to NYNolaguy1
Cops are going to fight driverless cars tooth and nail because it will virtually end the shakedown that is the DWI industry.
Now I don't condone anyone drinking and driving. But don't kid yourself by thinking that DWI laws are about anything other than revenue collection for the court system.
Now I don't condone anyone drinking and driving. But don't kid yourself by thinking that DWI laws are about anything other than revenue collection for the court system.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:52 am to Upperdecker
quote:
This could be huge. Add a half hour - 2 hours
Negative. A lot of places have near instant warrants that can be issued within 15 minutes.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:54 am to 13SaintTiger
quote:
i thought a warrant is not needed for probable cause, i.e. the accused looks or smells drunk
quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Probable cause is needed to obtain a warrant, it doesn't relieve the government from following the constitution and obtaining one.
This post was edited on 4/21/16 at 6:58 am
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:57 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
A lot of places have near instant warrants that can be issued within 15 minutes.
That will be the resolution. A judge will have to sit at the checkpoint and issue warrants. I am fine with that as long as they are following the 4th. But really, how many 70 year old, drunk off their collective arse, judges are going to be willing to sit in a checkpoint trailer all night signing warrants.
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News