Clowns in gowns to rule on the legality of laws that penalize refusal to take alcohol test

phill4paul

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
46,967
Care to venture a guess on how the ruling will go?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to rule on the legality of state laws that make it a criminal offense for a person to refuse to take an alcohol test when suspected of driving while drunk.

The court will hear three related appeals brought by drivers who refused to take tests in two different states, North Dakota and Minnesota. There are 13 states in total that have such laws.

Lawyers for the challengers say that the laws violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which outlaws unlawful searches and seizures because police do not obtain warrants first. The laws cover breath, blood and urine tests.

Under the Minnesota law, a conviction could lead to as much as seven years in prison and a fine of up to $14,000. In North Dakota, an initial refusal to take a test is a misdemeanor offense.

Lawyers for the states say the laws only apply when someone has been arrested for driving while drunk and has refused to take an alcohol test.

In all three cases, lower courts upheld the laws.

In a February 2015 ruling that rejected a challenge brought by driver William Robert Bernard, the Minnesota Supreme Court said that "charging Bernard with criminal test refusal does not implicate a fundamental right."

The new cases follow a 2013 Supreme Court ruling in which the court limited the ability of police to take involuntary blood samples from suspected drunken drivers without a search warrant.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-justices-weigh-laws-penalize-refusal-alcohol-test-203957341.html
 
I suspect they will be upheld. They will cite reasonable suspicion as a reason to not require a warrant because these tests are not administered randomly. The Court has sided with the idea that driving on public roads is a privilege and therefore the States can set their own limitations.

Instead of arguing on the basis of the 4th amendment, though, I would think the lawyers would have a better 5th amendment case. The right not to incriminate yourself. You have the right to remain silent while under arrest, surely you have the right not to blow into a tube. Imagine if they made it a crime to refuse to talk to the police!
 
If we didn't, how would we enforce DUI laws?? Many children would die.


Because kops care about children...
ABC_baby_crib_1_jtm_140530_16x9_608.jpg


081914-design-victims-of-brutality-d-Aiyana-Stanley-Jones-16x9.jpg
 
Instead of arguing on the basis of the 4th amendment, though, I would think the lawyers would have a better 5th amendment case. The right not to incriminate yourself. You have the right to remain silent while under arrest, surely you have the right not to blow into a tube. Imagine if they made it a crime to refuse to talk to the police!

The actual text of the 5th Amendment:
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

As usual, the meaning of those words in that combination is irrefutable. It has nothing to say about talking.

 
I suspect they will be upheld. They will cite reasonable suspicion as a reason to not require a warrant because these tests are not administered randomly. The Court has sided with the idea that driving on public roads is a privilege and therefore the States can set their own limitations.

Instead of arguing on the basis of the 4th amendment, though, I would think the lawyers would have a better 5th amendment case. The right not to incriminate yourself. You have the right to remain silent while under arrest, surely you have the right not to blow into a tube. Imagine if they made it a crime to refuse to talk to the police!


Totally agree-- +1
 
Back
Top