Every state has “implied consent” laws - when you get a drivers’ license, if you’re arrested for drunk/drugged driving, you give consent to have a breath/blood/urine test administered to determine if you were intoxicated. You have no legal right to condition taking the test on your lawyer showing up. Driving is a privilege and not a constitutional right.
I agree on implied consent, but I assert that the implied consent only applies to retention of the right/privilege of driving.
There is still such a thing as the 5th amendment, and you cannot remove that without 3/4 of the states ratifying an amendment to repeal it. IOW, you can refuse, but they can’t forcibly take your blood. If you refuse, they can take away your privilege. If it is practiced to the contrary, then we are subject to future diminuation of other rights willy-nilly in the name of “this or that [usually, the ‘chilrun’]”
Yeah, in most states. But, I don't think MO called for the whole taking the blood without a warrant issue. Sure, the license is revoked, but you didn't agree to have part of your body taken away, nor searched.
Not sure we have too many constitutional rights any longer.
Wonder if this blood that is being drawn enters into a dna database or destroyed? Just curious.
the concept of “implied consent” is one of the more evil ideas to come out of our police state.