Replies

You posted: Well, normally you are not required to give evidence against your self - right against self incrimination and all that.
***

I am pretty sure the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution on this and related issues (writing samples, hair samples, voice “prints” etc.) and has determined that the taking of them doesn’t violate the 5th amendment. If we considered this in the context of other crimes such as murder or molestation of a child, there would be a lot less argument about taking blood, or even semen samples. Once you are arrested the state is entitled to its evidence. I disagree with those who have posted to the contrary here.

>>You posted: Well, normally you are not required to give evidence against your self - right against self incrimination and all that.
***

I am pretty sure the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution on this and related issues (writing samples, hair samples, voice “prints” etc.) and has determined that the taking of them doesn’t violate the 5th amendment. If we considered this in the context of other crimes such as murder or molestation of a child, there would be a lot less argument about taking blood, or even semen samples. Once you are arrested the state is entitled to its evidence. I disagree with those who have posted to the contrary here.<<

I would hope that if it is part of your body they want that a court order would be required and the cops would have to show cause. I suspect this PR campaign is to keep people from availing themselves of a right to a hearing.

Oh no, not you again. What are you an attorney or something? :-)

You should be a talking head legal analist (not a misspelling) on cable TV.

“Once you are arrested the state is entitled to it’s evidence”

I hope they do a full body cavity search the next time some cop decides he doesn’t like your face and arrests you for jaywalking when you are in a hurry to make it to your next real estate closing.

Once you are arrested the state is entitled to its evidence. I disagree with those who have posted to the contrary here.

You can disagree all you want and you still will be wrong.

The "entitlement" depends on the circumstances - the state can seize evidence from the arrestee that normally would be taken and cataloged as part of the booking procedure such as a driver's license, money or other property since they are in plain view and there is no need for a search and seizure warrant. The State is still required to obtain a warrant for hair, saliva and blood samples that might have some value as evidence. So even in the subject of this thread, the State is required to obtain a seizure warrant to get a blood sample, regardless of the arrest status of the driver.

In the this thread people are correctly calling into question a practice of using a refusal to take a breathalyzer (which is both an exercise of one's fifth amendment right and a refusal to a consent search/waiver of fourth amendment right) as probable cause to obtain a warrant and do an end run around the person's exercise of rights.

Don't focus on the ends of the program - getting drunk drivers off the streets is a good goal; focus on the means - violating one person's rights violates everyone's rights, including yours.

You might want to waive them for the greater good, but I don't.