Missouri prosecutors: Warrant not needed for blood test in drunken driving cases.

The Kansas City Star ^ | 11-12-2010 | CHRIS BLANK

[missnry]

Your roomate is smart! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

[andyk]

Then by implication, would they claim that does not constitute assault? Because it seems like it would be.

They most certainly would argue that it is not assault, but the court was very clear that it does constitute a taking as shown here from the decision:

The administration of a blood alcohol test constitutes a seizure of a person and a search for evidence under both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 17 of the Idaho Constitution. Halen v. State, 136 Idaho 829, 833, 41 P.3d 257, 261 (2002) (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767 (1966); State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368, 370, 775 P.2d 1210, 1212 (1989)).

The decision goes on to provide justification for the taking via implied consent, as Krankor first indicated at the beginning of this thread.

[calex59]

Well, you have learned a valuable lesson with a minimum amount of damage to you. Never lend your car, or anything else, to other people.

[Blood of Tyrants]

And it ought to be under a violation of the 4th amendment protection against warrantless search and seizure and the 5th Amendment against being forced to provide witness against yourself.

[Traveler59]

How long before “implied consent” means they can search your house without a warrant? Or pull some blood and hair samples to do a tox screen at random? Getting a driver’s license doesn’t mean signing away your constitutional rights.

But here's the catch. You don't NEED to drive a car. Therefore it isn't a right to drive, it's a privilege. And with a privilege comes the responsibilities. My state has 'implied consent' law, and I have no problem with it. If you don't like it feel free to turn your license in. You won't have to worry about implied consent any more.

[chilltherats]

Just another government rape of freedoms.

I hate drunk/drugged drivers. They’re a menace and need to be horsewhipped.

That said, if someone refuses to take a BAC test, suspend their license.

Forcing somebody to give a blood test will be okay in my book when queers are held down and forced to give a blood test for HIV, which will be when Hell freezes over.

[chilltherats]

Right. Driving is legally considered a privilege. If you agree to take a BAC when under arrest and asked to do so, you violate the terms of the licensing privilege. Your license should be suspended.

But you don’t waive your Fifth Amendment right when you sign up for a driver’s license. You don’t agree to be a witness against yourself. If you choose to allow your license to be suspended by refusing a BAC test, then the DA should have to make his case against you some other way.

This is tyranny.

[VADoc1980]

Help me out here, the article was a bit confusing. Are the police blood testing suspects who refused to take the handheld breathalyzer after being pulled over? Or are they testing people who already blew over the limit on the handheld breathalyzer? If it’s the latter, I have no real problem with it. If it’s the former, I have a real problem with it. The idea that the police can hold you down and take your blood strikes me as downright totaliarian and immoral. There’s gotta be a simple way to deal with this problem without trampling on people’s rights. Are breathalyzers down at the police station as inaccurate as the handheld methods? If you consent to the breathalyzer and it shows you above .08 but you know there’s no way you were above .05, do you then have the right to get a blood test? If it were me and I knew I wasn’t over the limit (and I almost never drink), I probably would refuse the breath test too for fear it could pop me.

[thecabal]

You sound like a progressive; trying to have the government dictate what we need or don’t need. That which is not mandatory is prohibited, eh?

[jarofants]

I was watching one of them shows on TV (I think the name was Jail) and they were taking a guys blood forcefully. I don't think that's right. They had 5 or 6 guys holding him down, and his face was all beat up from the cops beating him earlier.

[babygene]

“The decision goes on to provide justification for the taking via implied consent, as Krankor first indicated at the beginning of this thread.”

Implied consent is horse manure. Is there “implied consent” to have sex when a person gets a marriage license? I don’t think so.... That wouldn’t get you very far.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

“I don’t let friends use my car.”

I don’t blame you. And the word I would use to describe you is “smart.” If one of your friends is involved in a car accident, it’s unlikely that your insurance would cover the damage.

[Eldon Tyrell]

The issue here is an implied consent to give away fundemental rights.

This is why we have a 2nd amendment. To protect the others.

[Luke21]

Don’t you all wish they worked this hard to catch murderers and rapists?

[screaminsunshine]

Sure. When you sign your license you waive your rights. If when you sign your license you also write ‘under duress’ you can spend a couple million fighting the administrative law courts and the ABA and still lose. The best thing to do if you are caught...Plead Broke.

[screaminsunshine]

Wise up. It means exactly that. Same as when you sign up for social security.

[Dusty Road]

I'll go back to one of my prior comments. How far are they willing to go? I was a peace officer in West TX for 22 years, I've had more than my share of fights and wrestling matches trying to subdue a suspect. When a person has made up they're mind they will not cooperate, some body’s going to get hurt. It might be them or it might be you. I personally don't think 6 men can hold me still enough to draw my blood without having to give up a little of they're own. This is a dangerous situation for both the officers and the suspect and sets up serious legal ramifications for the department should something go wrong and it will sooner or later. Should the suspect have a mental disorder or diabetes then you have a nightmare situation and an attorneys wet dream. I'd have nothing to do with it nor would I have allowed any of my deputies to be involved.
We have attorneys running adds in the papers and local radio stations telling people not to cooperate if stopped by an officer for suspicion of DWI. Give only minimum information and present your ID. They also say never take any type of field sobriety tests whether they're breath, mobility or eye.

[Quickgun]

Actually,I don’t believe a licence should be suspended until a court of law has proven guilt. Suspending a drivers licence on the whim of a police officer can create extreme hardship on a person who must drive to work.
No person should have to submit to a blood test without his consent. If that is “deemed” legal,(the dems like that word),then why not just beat a confession out of him? JMO..

[Dusty Road]

In TX refusal to comply means automatic suspension for 180 day's, but you can apply for and get an occupational license that allows you to travel to and from work and to take care of normal day to day necessities. Penalty for refusal is less than that of a DWI.

[2harddrive]

Breathalyzer tests can ALSO be manipulated by the officer, if he or she knows how, to yield a false positive - indicating acute intoxication in someone with a true 0.00 level.