Posted on 11/12/2010 6:46:29 PM PST by MissouriConservative
JEFFERSON CITY | Missouri prosecutors say they believe a new state drunken driving law gives police the authority to take blood samples from reluctant suspects without a warrant.
The guidance came during a presentation organized by the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services for law officers and prosecutors. Officials across the state received training Friday on handling drunken driving cases.
Cole County Prosecutor Mark Richardson, who led the discussion during a session in Jefferson City, said the new drunken driving law seems to permit the taking of blood without a warrant under certain circumstances. However, Richardson said he still advises law officers in his county to seek a warrant until prosecutors find a favorable case to present the issue for the courts to decide.
"There is a good number of people that believe that as of today ... upon the arrest of someone for driving while intoxicated or for drugs, you have the authority under the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to take that person and have a blood sample drawn even if they refuse," said Richardson, who noted that some disagree with that interpretation.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/12/2426786/missouri-prosecutors-warrant-not.html#ixzz157s0SIJZ
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Your roomate is smart! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
“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.
The issue here is an implied consent to give away fundemental rights.
This is why we have a 2nd amendment. To protect the others.
Don’t you all wish they worked this hard to catch murderers and rapists?
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.
Wise up. It means exactly that. Same as when you sign up for social security.
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..
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.
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.