- 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
0
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:04 am to NYNolaguy1
popcorn indeed.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:08 am to ManBearTiger
quote:
In some places they'll have a judge on-hand at the check-point site to sign warrants as they need them.
I think you're missing the point. The judge then becomes responsible for illegal searches that are being conducted.
Checkpoints by definition are assuming guilt and performing a search on drivers. With a warrant required there has to be probable cause. So if the police officer skirts the rules (and yes, they will) the judge will be scrutinized almost as equally as the officer in this case if he issues the warrant.
This opens a huge can of worms for cases where someone was found guilty as a result of unwarranted searches.
This post was edited on 4/21/16 at 8:09 am
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:10 am to TigerattheU
quote:
William Robert Bernard was drunkenly attempting to pull a boat out of a river with a truck—in only his underwear
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:12 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
My understanding is this will not change anything in most states, only the 14 states that have sentences for refusing. In Georgia, you can refuse breathalyzer and blood test, however, they will still take your license, because you agree to those when you get your drivers license. This will just prevent them from jailing you for actually refusing, not for suspicion of drunk driving.
Ding, ding, ding... This is it.
Here is Louisiana it is the same thing. If you refuse, you license is suspended because you agreed to the tests when you signed for your license. There is no criminal penalty that is added for refusing. The probable cause for arrest was already established at this point when a person failed the field sobriety test and other factors. The breathalyzer is just used for more evidence.
The only thing this will change is the criminal penalty in the 14 states that is added for a refusal.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:12 am to Upperdecker
quote:
In the old days, warrantless blood tests may have been a necessary evil, because a driver’s blood alcohol level could fall while the cops secured a warrant. But today, thanks to technological developments like electronic warrants—which let officers ask judges for warrants quickly and remotely—that concern has largely faded
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:14 am to TigerattheU
That was beautiful.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:26 am to DownSouthDave
quote:agree completely. I believe drunk drivers should spend years in prison for their recklessness, but I also know breathalyzers are 1000% unconstitutional, as are stop and frisk, etc.
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 8:41 am to Displaced
You would have done great in an eastern bloc country circa- 1950. Who cares about constitutional rights, way overrated.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:42 am to NYNolaguy1
They've already ruled on this in the past and found it constitutional. This would be overturning prior law.
The 4th protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures without a warrant. It's going to turn on whether this is objectively reasonable. The way they determine if it's reasonable is if the person has a legitimate privacy interest that society is ready to realize as needing protection and if exclusion of the evidence would deter future warrantless tests of this nature.
I would be willing to bet that they say the officers may look at the circumstances and decide whether or not to breathalyze someone, which will basically do nothing.
The 4th protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures without a warrant. It's going to turn on whether this is objectively reasonable. The way they determine if it's reasonable is if the person has a legitimate privacy interest that society is ready to realize as needing protection and if exclusion of the evidence would deter future warrantless tests of this nature.
I would be willing to bet that they say the officers may look at the circumstances and decide whether or not to breathalyze someone, which will basically do nothing.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:43 am to NYNolaguy1
The states shouldn't oppose this. They still have the right to revoke someone's driver's license for refusal.
There is still plenty of money to be made (all withou the cost of prosecuting a DUI case) by charging people $500.00 to reinstate their licenses.
There is still plenty of money to be made (all withou the cost of prosecuting a DUI case) by charging people $500.00 to reinstate their licenses.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:46 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
No one should be held criminally liable for asserting their rights.
While I agree this statement this decision likely won't change anything at all. If the court does rule one needs a warrant for this, states will start making you sign consent to "searches" in order to get a drivers license.
A drivers license isn't a right
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:48 am to NYNolaguy1
The For Profit Prison industry is waiting to be shorted hard when the USSC rules this violates 1st amendment rights.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:53 am to ihometiger
quote:
violates 1st amendment rights.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:55 am to ihometiger
How is this related to the first amendment? Searches are 4/14th amendment issues.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:55 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The only downside though is that without the ability to administer roadside tests, we will probably see a rise in drunk driving related deaths.
No way. Most of these tests come from stops where the police actually block city traffic and stop every car and try to make money for the division that pays their salary to "protect".
It's an oversized ATM.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:57 am to BACONisMEATcandy
quote:
If the court does rule one needs a warrant for this, states will start making you sign consent to "searches" in order to get a drivers license.
A drivers license isn't a right
Which is what most other states do, instead of imprisoning those who say no. You shouldn't have to choose between going to prison or giving up your rights. If you do have that choice they were never rights to begin with.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 9:00 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
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.
So wait a minute. We should protect drunk driver's which you readily acknowledge will lead to an increase in impaired driving accidents and deaths but I mean that's the "only downside" so no big deal I guess? Unbelievable.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 9:03 am to BACONisMEATcandy
quote:
While I agree this statement this decision likely won't change anything at all. If the court does rule one needs a warrant for this, states will start making you sign consent to "searches" in order to get a drivers license
They do this. But the penalty can't be jail time. They can take away the privilege of driving, but the police (the executive arm of the state) cant arrest you for refusing a search, regardless of what "privileges" the administrative arm of the state allows you to have.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 9:08 am to MoonrakerElite
They are going to take it a step further if they lose this case saying you agree to "random" breathalyzer screenings when you renew your drivers license. If you don't agree to it you will not be issued a drivers license.
It can if they have a document saying you agreed to the breathalyzer, which they now have
quote:
But the penalty can't be jail time
It can if they have a document saying you agreed to the breathalyzer, which they now have
This post was edited on 4/21/16 at 9:10 am
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News