Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Student pushes lawmakers to fix DWI loophole
Pioneer Press ^ | 4-6-14 | Rubén Rosario

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: alicialong; capitolhell; concordiauniversity; cultureofcorruption; drunk; exempt; followthemoney; formeandnotforthee; hopebaker; jaynejones; legislators; minnesota; mn; normcoleman; revenuetickets; separatebutequal; tothemanorborn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
For me and not for thee ping. Thanks TurboZamboni.
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.

21 posted on 04/06/2014 11:28:34 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: vette6387

“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.


22 posted on 04/06/2014 12:13:03 PM PDT by GOPsterinMA (You're a very weird person, Yossarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lionheartusa1

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.

http://www.texaspossessionofmarijuanalawyer.com/2014/04/supreme-court-rules-against-warrantless-blood-draws-in-dwi-stops-upholds-fourth-amendment-right-agai.html

Excerpts From Supreme Court’s Decision Upholding Sobriety Checkpoints

Special to The New York Times
Published: June 15, 1990

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/us/excerpts-from-supreme-court-s-decision-upholding-sobriety-checkpoints.html

I disagree. but I’m just a a lowly citizen, not a black robed high priest of jurisprudence.


23 posted on 04/06/2014 12:41:26 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Kerry Kennedy acquitted of drugged driving in New York

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3128028/posts


24 posted on 04/06/2014 12:46:58 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

One law for them one for the peasants


25 posted on 04/06/2014 1:15:19 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

,,, 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 .


26 posted on 04/06/2014 2:00:56 PM PDT by Lionheartusa1 (-: 0bamanomics is the equal distribution of misery :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

So the state can trump the US Constitution ,,, I doubt that ,,, been tried many times so unsuccessfully


27 posted on 04/06/2014 2:03:49 PM PDT by Lionheartusa1 (-: 0bamanomics is the equal distribution of misery :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lionheartusa1

SCOTUS has already spoken on this issue. Look it up. Driving is a privilege, not a right.


28 posted on 04/06/2014 2:10:29 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lionheartusa1

You are not in your home, it is in a car in public on public roads.
I like the drunks and druggies getting caught.


29 posted on 04/06/2014 4:51:37 PM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God Bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

,,,, 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 .


30 posted on 04/07/2014 6:18:58 AM PDT by Lionheartusa1 (-: 0bamanomics is the equal distribution of misery :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

,,,, I agree with you ,,,, but this is how our constitution gets watered down until you have little rights protected .


31 posted on 04/07/2014 6:20:48 AM PDT by Lionheartusa1 (-: 0bamanomics is the equal distribution of misery :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson