[SnakeDoctor]

The involvement of the judge is Constitutionally required to satisfy the 4th Amendment. A warrant is simply a judicial recognition of probable cause — it is an independent review of the impending search. The officer doesn’t need to prove that the guy is drunk ... he simply needs to show that he has good reason to think the guy is drunk. If the officer sees probable cause, and the judge agrees ... the search is Constitutional.

Despite the activity of the ACLU, the Constitution is not exclusively intended as a list of technicalities for people to get away with criminal activity.

It is a control on government activity. When the government meets the criteria set out by the Constitution, the government has an interest in enforcing the law.

SnakeDoc

[sam_paine]

"When people realize (law enforcement) are going to get the evidence one way or another, they say I might as well provide that breath specimen, which is less intrusive than getting blood from a vein," [Catherine Evans, chief of the district attorney's Vehicular Crimes Section] said.

"No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

If there is sufficent evidence to warrant a judge to authorize the STATE putting a NEEDLE IN YOU against your will, then there is sufficient evidence to convict the person on that evidence later on in court.

What they're admitting is that without compelling the suspect to provide the prosecution evidence, the STATE could not otherwise put on a compelling case later on.

I always get a kick out of people like you who complain about defendants "getting off on technicalities."

THE LAW IS A COLLECTION OF TECHNICALITIES.

It's like saying carrying the one in long division is just a technicality. IT'S PART OF THE RULES FOR A REASON.