Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
octopus prime

SCOTUS Attacks the 4th Amendment...Again

6 posts in this topic

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-partly-strikes-down-state-drunken-driving-141650275.html U.S. top court limits drunken-driver refusal laws

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - States can force suspected drunken drivers to take breath tests without first obtaining a warrant but cannot require them to take a more invasive blood test, the U.S. Supreme Court said on Thursday in a ruling that impacts laws in 11 states.

The court decided 7-1 that states cannot criminalize the refusal to take a blood test without a warrant, but also ruled 6-2 that it was acceptable for states to punish the refusal to take a breath test.

Lawyers for three defendants convicted of refusing to take tests in North Dakota and Minnesota had argued that the laws in those states violated the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures, because police did not have to obtain warrants first.

"Because breath tests are significantly less intrusive than blood tests and in most cases amply serve law enforcement interests, we conclude that a breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search, incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving," Justice Samuel Alito wrote on behalf of five justices in the majority on both elements of the ruling.

(Cut)

Since when is "less obtrusive" Constitutional? Pretty much on target.  While people are yelling over the 2nd amendment,  the others are being taken. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, octopus prime said:

Because breath tests are significantly less intrusive than blood tests and in most cases amply serve law enforcement interests

This is reprehensible and shows exactly why these supremes need limited terms, not lifetime appointments! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cinnamon said:

This is reprehensible and shows exactly why these supremes need limited terms, not lifetime appointments! 

I  love the way the headlines make it seem the SCOTUS "struck down " and "limited" police powers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cinnamon said:

This is reprehensible and shows exactly why these supremes need limited terms, not lifetime appointments! 

Life time appointments are fine! (as long as we gots lots o' rope)  *snicker*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jostler said:

Life time appointments are fine! (as long as we gots lots o' rope)  *snicker*

They should only be allowed to be sworn in if they have a terminal disease and will be dead within 2 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, octopus prime said:

I  love the way the headlines make it seem the SCOTUS "struck down " and "limited" police powers. 

Yes and all the sleeping people will think that they have won their right... to whatever.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.