Skip to comments.Student pushes lawmakers to fix DWI loophole
Posted on 04/06/2014 9:24:51 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
Hope Baker is one determined young lady. She won't take no for an answer, even though it looks like her Don Quixote-type quest has run smack into a legislative windmill up at the state Capitol.
Along with Jayne Jones, her Concordia University political science professor, and six like-minded classmates, the 22-year-old Alexandria native and law school aspirant wants to add impaired driving as a specified exclusion to a state law that grants lawmakers immunity from arrest in certain cases while the session is underway. But the push to clarify a centuries-old state Constitution provision has not gone over well with some folks up at the people's house.
"We've heard from (legislative staffers) that we are the joke of the Capitol," she said of the effort, which led to a bipartisan bill tabled March 27 by the Senate Judiciary Committee and appears technically axed from floor-vote consideration this year. The House version, in contrast, is heading for a floor vote. A similar effort by another class of students three years ago never reached the floor for a vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
As well they should be.
Picture Harry Reid having a senator arrested on trumped up drunken driving charges, resulting in him being detained long enough to miss a crucial Senate vote.
There is a reason why we have these immunities.
Yes, drunk driving is bad. So is tyranny.
does MRS CLINTON even drive?
Even though we know that couldn't happen cause that would be like the IRS investigating the TEA party, no never happens.
Senate president arrested on DWI charge
“Drunk Feckless Liberals”
and not the first time...remember this??
and we citizens wonder IF there’s a double standard.one for the citizens and one for the lawmakers. I wish they could get fired for doing stuff like this.
It appears Minnesota has become a sanctuary state for drunken legislators. Maybe we need to deport some.
Didn’t a Kennedy get off of a DWI charge by claiming he was driving to a late night session?
When Chris Bell (lameduck Democrat congressman) levied “ethics violation” charges against Tom DeLay, it was enough to run him out of leadership (and eventually out of Congress) even though the charges were eventually defeated.
DWI is but one tool in their arsenal.
He was also on Ambien. And being a Kennedy, he skated. Just like the other Kennedy (although she’s not a ‘Lawmaker”) did last month in NY.
Right but the Kennedy I referenced (the first in your response) DID use the “in session” claim. The second used the “it would hamper my efforts at world peace negotiations” excuse.
If the U.S.A. Constitution’s 5th amendment allows you to not incriminate yourself before trial ,,,, then how do the states seem to void this provision for DWI’s and DUI’s . Can states suspend your USA Constitutional rights ??? A field sobriety test is just that , and in many state cases will result in an automatic suspension or revocation of your right to a fair trial and your license privilege .
I’ve often wondered how this works .
It’s because driving is a privilege granted by the State, not a right protected by the Constitution.
That whole family (minus the one the Nazi loving father had lobotomized and the sister that was ostracized for marrying a Protestant) should be thrown into an oven; the damage they unleashed on this country is incalculable.
He may have relied upon Art 1 Sec 6 of the Constitution:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Stupidity in driving initiates the test the same way a gun initiates a response.
Dwi is a violation of the law. You are even subjected to random dwi chekpoints.
Real issue is to keep your drunken or pot enhanced butts off the road.
Just my opinion but the Dems tried to run Delay from his position several times on trumped up ethics violations for years; only in 2005 (or 2003) after years of filing them did they make them stick. I think he was setup from the gitgo on BS. I’ve met him and he’s genuine and down to earth; not like so many of the other politicians you come across.
I believe he also struck a LEO with his vehicle during that incident.
You just described how the Rats got rid of Tom Delay.
The Pubbies have a rule that someone merely indicted for a Felony cannot serve on the House leadership, so a local politically motivated prosecutor in Austin indicted Delay on a trumped-up charge that was laughed out of court (after the damage was done).
The Rats have no such rule, and screamed bloody murder when the Republicans suggested they were going to get rid of theirs. The imbalance exists to this day.
“That whole family (minus the one the Nazi loving father had lobotomized and the sister that was ostracized for marrying a Protestant) should be thrown into an oven; the damage they unleashed on this country is incalculable.”
THAT my friend is the understatement of the day! And yet they continue to be revered by the lobotomized “citizens” of the Northeastern states. Boston has 28 “institutions of higher learning,” all of which should be shuttered and dismantled. I almost hurled when I visited the BU library and saw the “shrine” to Dan Rather, and the other for Edward Brooke (their token Black “Republican”).
Along with Jayne Jones, her Concordia University political science professor, and six like-minded classmates, the 22-year-old Alexandria native and law school aspirant wants to add impaired driving as a specified exclusion to a state law that grants lawmakers immunity from arrest in certain cases while the session is underway.
“THAT my friend is the understatement of the day!”
Thank you, friend! Not all of us in the NE worship those trash or support their shrines.
If I had been alive in either 1963 or 1968, I would have applauded. Mary Jo Kopechne had to die to keep another one out of the White House; she’s a hero for that.
Supreme Court Rules Against Warrantless Blood Draws in DWI Stops, Upholds Fourth Amendment Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure
In April 2013, the Supreme Court found that blood drawn during a DWI or DUI investigation without consent violates a defendant’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure unless the government actors have obtained a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement applies. Under the Fourth Amendment, for a search or seizure to be reasonable, the person must consent, the officer must produce a signed warrant or there must be an “exigent circumstance” such that if the officer took the time to obtain a proper warrant, the evidence or person to be searched or seized would be lost. In this case, the “exigent circumstance” was the “natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream” as McNeely’s blood alcohol level would have naturally decreased with time. In effect, the Supreme Court held that a routine DWI stop is not enough to constitute an exigent circumstance or emergency, so blood cannot be taken without a valid warrant or the person’s consent. Examples of exigent circumstances include the need to: “provide emergency assistance to an occupant in a home,” “engage in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect,” “enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause” and “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” These are times when law enforcement requires neither consent nor a search warrant before taking action.
In light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, many are left wondering how the court will address implied consent as well as warrantless searches in DWI cases involving substances other than alcohol, such as marijuana. At the moment, the presence of true exigent circumstances allowing an officer to perform a warrantless search without the person’s permission during DWI cases must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Excerpts From Supreme Court’s Decision Upholding Sobriety Checkpoints
Special to The New York Times
Published: June 15, 1990
I disagree. but I’m just a a lowly citizen, not a black robed high priest of jurisprudence.
Kerry Kennedy acquitted of drugged driving in New York
One law for them one for the peasants
,,, it’s one thing to be caught with an open container in your car or other physical evidence and a total different circumstance to be put in the position of having to give them evidence in violation of your protected #5 privilege . They should at least read you your rights and give you the option knowing your rights. A video cam in the police would make the test a moot issue in most cases just watching their behavior .
So the state can trump the US Constitution ,,, I doubt that ,,, been tried many times so unsuccessfully
SCOTUS has already spoken on this issue. Look it up. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
You are not in your home, it is in a car in public on public roads.
I like the drunks and druggies getting caught.
,,,, your option against self incrimination “IS A RIGHT” !!!! not a privilege !!!,,, and should be protected by the high court . Self incrimination is just what a DWI test is PERIOD ,,, yes or no ???? should states be able to arbitrarily suspend or revoke Constitutional amendments as part of their privilege to do so ???
I’ve heard that silly explanation before many times before . Does the 5th amendment guarantee your right or not ,,,, plain and simple ???
,,,, your own lawyer will tell you ,,, remain silent and refuse any tests .
,,,, I agree with you ,,,, but this is how our constitution gets watered down until you have little rights protected .