Posted on 06/23/2016 7:59:56 AM PDT by rarestia
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday placed new limits on state laws that make it a crime for motorists suspected of drunken driving to refuse alcohol tests.
The justices ruled that police must obtain a search warrant before requiring drivers to take blood alcohol tests, but not breath tests, which the court considers less intrusive.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I have a problem with this. You’re being forced to provide evidence that could incriminate you. So much for the 5th amendment.
Here in Indiana they’ve been getting warrants to compel blood tests for several years know.
Give the breath test and if it’s close then get the warrant for the blood test. Reasonable doubt then exists. This is not rocket science. In fact, it can become routine and easy.
More importantly - they put Obama’s immigration plan in the toilet.
Problem is that they (used to) have to have probable cause just to pull you over. Now they can pull you over, tell you they suspect you of being drunk, force you to blow. That a violation of my 4th amendment rights, period.
The 5th Amendment only applies to statements, such as confessions, admissions or what I call “useful information.” It has never extended to physical evidence such as blood samples, fingerprints, voice or handwriting samples. The seizure of physical evidence, as in this case, is covered by the 4th Amendment.
Just about any cop can come up with a reason to pull you over. Marked lanes is about the easiest of them all.
Don’t they typically do field sobriety tests before breath tests?
The irony is the blood test is the most accurate.
I heard a lawyer say “always insist on a blood test”.
Why? Because, breath tests (not to mention walk-the-line tests) are highly inaccurate. You can be under the legal limit, but show positive on a breath test.
This will only encourage officers to use the less accurate tests. And, when it comes to the less accurate tests, when in doubt they will lean toward arresting you.
Not necessarily. I think the field test is also used to determine capacity to continue to drive. So, they might use it after an acceptable blow test just to get their way AND to have court data supporting their decision. I don’t really fault the police on drunk drivers. Impaired drivers are deadly. I fault some of them for being rude and arrogant even when their numbers don’t validate their suspicions.
Not to mention the Fourth Amendment’s safeguards against illegal search and seizure.
I think the rationale is that your breath and urine are expelled from your body by natural processes, so only probable cause is needed to collect them. Blood, on the other hand, is considered part of your person, soa court order is required to get it.
“You’re being forced to provide evidence that could incriminate you. So much for the 5th amendment.”
I agree with you 100%.
Here’s a GREAT site if you’re interested in your Fourth Amendment RIGHTS.
For shame - Thomas sides with Big Government.
and our southern neighbors who believe drunk driving is a sport akin to “football” rise up and cheer!
Wish I had confidence that the breath test machines are proper, properly maintained, and properly calibrated. But, my confidence in government institutions has dropped to a very low point.
“Wish I had confidence that the breath test machines are proper, properly maintained, and properly calibrated.”
Gargle with mouthwash and the machine will say you’re drunk for quite some time afterwards.
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.