Thought court would require a warrant.
“It would force them to choose between prioritizing a warrant application, to the detriment of critical health and safety needs, and delaying the warrant application,...”
Those who give up Freedom for safety...
Based on the facts of this case, the taking of a blood sample was a 4th amendment violation. He was just sitting in his car passed out. There was no “exigent circumstance”. There was no crime other than being drunk. There was no accident to investigate. They could have convicted him the old fashioned way: testimony of the witnesses.
There are times when it would be ok to draw a man’s blood without his consent. I don’t think this was one of them.
Won’t be long before they officially recognize thought crimes now...
Exigent circumstances has long been considered an exception to the warrant requirement. The blood-alcohol thing generally lasts around three hours. I didn’t read the whole ruling but there should be something in there about a genuine attempt to get a warrant within a reasonable time first, and if unable, then maybe a warrantless blood test (”search of persons”) if there is clear probable cause to do so.
Also, don’t forget, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions IF constitutional apply ONLY to the parties in the case at hand and is NOT NATIONAL LAW.
The Constitution reserves national law to ONE BODY ONLY: CONGRESS.
I like Alito. I helped him with his computers when we had the same zip-code and he answered legal questions I had about shell corporations.
But, in effect, here is saying that the ends trump the Constitution. I know him better. He couldn't possibly believe this. One can always come up with slippery-slope situations but they shouldn't be the basis of our law.
ML/NJ