Blood Tests And Bad Lawyering

[bobandtorey]

T

he justices of the United States Supreme Court are at their best when united against a common foe. It’s much easier to put aside doctrinal differences and work together when an attorney at the lectern sounds like a clodhopping amateur trying out for the moot court team. On Wednesday, in a critically important Fourth Amendment case, not one but two advocates performed so terribly that the justices effectively gave up and had a conversation among themselves. The result was a deeply uncomfortable 70 minutes during which the clash between state power and individual autonomy took a back seat to jokes about night court and hillbilly judges.

•  
•  
•  

Wednesday’s case, Birchfield v. North Dakota, involves laws that impose criminal penalties when motorists suspected of drunk driving refuse to take a “chemical test”—usually a blood or breath test. North Dakota, Minnesota, and 10 other states have passed such measures to avoid pesky issues like obtaining a warrant before sticking a needle in a driver’s arm or a tube in her mouth. Danny Birchfield, who was arrested for refusing to take a blood test, argued that these laws violate the Fourth Amendment, which typically requires a warrant before police can conduct a search. North Dakota says motorists give consent to chemical tests when they drive in the state. Birchfield says legally mandated consent is no consent at all.

One problem for Birchfield is that he was definitely drunk when he was arrested—after driving into a ditch, attempting to drive out of it, then emerging from his car reeking of booze. His fellow petitioners in this consolidated case were similarly sloshed. Steve Michael Beylund was pulled over after nearly hitting a stop sign, then halting his car on the road; when a cop approached the car, he saw an empty wine glass in the cup holder. William Robert Bernard was drunkenly attempting to pull a boat out of a river with a truck—in only his underwear—when a witness called the cops on him. These fellows are not exactly model defendants.

 

Read more here

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/04/scotus_drunk_driving_case_looks_good_for_the_drunk_drivers.html

 

[Indigro]

Dont we also have this here, in that if an officer wants to do a blood draw they will, or its a suspended lic and something like 7pts on ur record plus an impounded car and further legal expenses? And the argument for is that we all consent simply by accepting our driv lic from the sos? I dont remember a disclosure statement for this. Seems a lot like extortion. Not that i support drunk driving, just oppose police abuses.

[phaquetoo]

if you refuse a breathalizer in MI you lose your liscense for 6 months and get 6 points on your record, all that before you even go to court!

 

Peace