Supreme Court limits warrantless blood tests for drunken driving suspects

THe Washington Post ^ | April 17, 2013 | Robert Barnes

[mrsmith]

States should just impose a blood ‘tax’ for drivers who are pulled over...

[oh8eleven]

Your insurance company gets notified by the state if you refuse to blow.
They'll probably dump you (especially if there are priors) - or raise your rates 3X-10X.

[Lurking Libertarian]

In a long line of cases going back to 1910, the Supreme Court held that the 5th Amendment protects you against being forced to give oral or written testimony, but not against being forced to display your physical characteristics— standing in a lineup, giving fingerprints, having blood drawn, etc.

[Wanderer99]

So if you’re tired and swerving on the road because you work 3 jobs to pay for Obama’s taxes then you get to be falsely accused of drunkenness...lovely.

[Wanderer99]

I find it absolutely sickening that police thugs are given the authority to hold someone down and stick a needle in their arm without trial. These are not the actions of an “innocent until proven guilty” system.

and you'll never know if proper antiseptic technique was used or if the needle is contaminated with HIV. Not all cops are competent and unlike medical staff, you can't sue them at the drop of a hat.

[centurion316]

I think, in general, that we have erred too far in granting exceptions to the rights of individuals in deference to the interests of government. Will some guilty go free? Yes, of course, but better than a single innocent wrongly deprived of God given liberty and freedom. This the founders firmly believed, but our current crop of politicians sadly do not.

[Lurking Libertarian]

So if you’re tired and swerving on the road because you work 3 jobs to pay for Obama’s taxes then you get to be falsely accused of drunkenness...lovely.

If that happened to me, I'd be screaming to take a blood test. They wouldn't need a warrant.

[zeugma]

Thomas' dissent is here.

[Boogieman]

I know that, but the Supreme Court is often completely wrong when it comes to the Constitution.

[uncommonsense]

"Thomas is a "law and order" conservative; he votes for the prosecution in nearly every criminal case."

That's an observation that I wasn't aware of - not being a rigorous student of SCOTUS.

Based on future SCOTUS nominations, this precedence makes a serious point of delineation for new "due process" litigation. Liberty is in the balance... and drifting to the LEFT.

[The_Sword_of_Groo]

Pardon my ignorance here, but are you saying the cops are drawing blood on the roadside? In GA, we have an “implied consent” law subjecting you to a test of blood, breath, or urine but if you have blood drawn you are transported to hospital.