Posted on 04/06/2014 9:24:51 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
Hope Baker is one determined young lady. She won't take no for an answer, even though it looks like her Don Quixote-type quest has run smack into a legislative windmill up at the state Capitol.
Along with Jayne Jones, her Concordia University political science professor, and six like-minded classmates, the 22-year-old Alexandria native and law school aspirant wants to add impaired driving as a specified exclusion to a state law that grants lawmakers immunity from arrest in certain cases while the session is underway. But the push to clarify a centuries-old state Constitution provision has not gone over well with some folks up at the people's house.
"We've heard from (legislative staffers) that we are the joke of the Capitol," she said of the effort, which led to a bipartisan bill tabled March 27 by the Senate Judiciary Committee and appears technically axed from floor-vote consideration this year. The House version, in contrast, is heading for a floor vote. A similar effort by another class of students three years ago never reached the floor for a vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
Along with Jayne Jones, her Concordia University political science professor, and six like-minded classmates, the 22-year-old Alexandria native and law school aspirant wants to add impaired driving as a specified exclusion to a state law that grants lawmakers immunity from arrest in certain cases while the session is underway.
“THAT my friend is the understatement of the day!”
Thank you, friend! Not all of us in the NE worship those trash or support their shrines.
If I had been alive in either 1963 or 1968, I would have applauded. Mary Jo Kopechne had to die to keep another one out of the White House; she’s a hero for that.
Supreme Court Rules Against Warrantless Blood Draws in DWI Stops, Upholds Fourth Amendment Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure
In April 2013, the Supreme Court found that blood drawn during a DWI or DUI investigation without consent violates a defendant’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure unless the government actors have obtained a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement applies. Under the Fourth Amendment, for a search or seizure to be reasonable, the person must consent, the officer must produce a signed warrant or there must be an “exigent circumstance” such that if the officer took the time to obtain a proper warrant, the evidence or person to be searched or seized would be lost. In this case, the “exigent circumstance” was the “natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream” as McNeely’s blood alcohol level would have naturally decreased with time. In effect, the Supreme Court held that a routine DWI stop is not enough to constitute an exigent circumstance or emergency, so blood cannot be taken without a valid warrant or the person’s consent. Examples of exigent circumstances include the need to: “provide emergency assistance to an occupant in a home,” “engage in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect,” “enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause” and “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” These are times when law enforcement requires neither consent nor a search warrant before taking action.
In light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, many are left wondering how the court will address implied consent as well as warrantless searches in DWI cases involving substances other than alcohol, such as marijuana. At the moment, the presence of true exigent circumstances allowing an officer to perform a warrantless search without the person’s permission during DWI cases must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Excerpts From Supreme Court’s Decision Upholding Sobriety Checkpoints
Special to The New York Times
Published: June 15, 1990
I disagree. but I’m just a a lowly citizen, not a black robed high priest of jurisprudence.
Kerry Kennedy acquitted of drugged driving in New York
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3128028/posts
One law for them one for the peasants
,,, it’s one thing to be caught with an open container in your car or other physical evidence and a total different circumstance to be put in the position of having to give them evidence in violation of your protected #5 privilege . They should at least read you your rights and give you the option knowing your rights. A video cam in the police would make the test a moot issue in most cases just watching their behavior .
So the state can trump the US Constitution ,,, I doubt that ,,, been tried many times so unsuccessfully
SCOTUS has already spoken on this issue. Look it up. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
You are not in your home, it is in a car in public on public roads.
I like the drunks and druggies getting caught.
,,,, your option against self incrimination “IS A RIGHT” !!!! not a privilege !!!,,, and should be protected by the high court . Self incrimination is just what a DWI test is PERIOD ,,, yes or no ???? should states be able to arbitrarily suspend or revoke Constitutional amendments as part of their privilege to do so ???
I’ve heard that silly explanation before many times before . Does the 5th amendment guarantee your right or not ,,,, plain and simple ???
,,,, your own lawyer will tell you ,,, remain silent and refuse any tests .
,,,, I agree with you ,,,, but this is how our constitution gets watered down until you have little rights protected .
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.