Supreme Court Affirms Police Can Order Blood Drawn From Unconscious DUI Suspects

[Recursion]

Source: NPR

The Supreme Court has ruled that police may, without a warrant, order blood drawn from an unconscious person suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol.

The Fourth Amendment generally requires police to obtain a warrant for a blood draw. But on Thursday the court, by a 5-4 vote, upheld a Wisconsin law that says people driving on a public road have impliedly consented to having their blood drawn if police suspect them of driving under the influence. It also said that "exigent circumstances" permit police to obtain a blood sample without a warrant.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority vote.

The decision conflicts with previous court rulings in which the justices ruled that a blood draw is a significant bodily intrusion into a person's privacy, and that there are less intrusive ways of enforcing drunk driving laws against unconscious motorists — getting a warrant, for instance, which in these tech-savvy days can be done relatively easily and quickly.

Read more: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/732852170/supreme-court-affirms-police-can-draw-blood-from-unconscious-drivers

---

Maybe we should require samples from Supreme Court justices. Urine samples will be easy since they seem to piss on the Constitution like this a lot.

[gopiscrap]

1. that's fucked up

[SWBTATTReg]

2. Hope that they have safeguards in place to actually determine that the blood drawn is indeed...

the blood of the suspect. Getting drunk people off the roads should be a top priority but safeguarding against unreasonable searches and seizures need to be on tap too...

[Drunken Irishman]

3. Stephen Breyer voting with the conservative justices is unfortunate.

He proved the difference here.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. Despite my name, I do not drink and drive BTW

[PatSeg]

5. That could be a very slippery slope

I don't think I'd trust a lot of police not to abuse that power. Could be viewed as "unwarranted search and seizure".

[AtheistCrusader]

6. A short Play.

Officer: Do you consent to a blood draw?
Suspect: No.
Officer: Ok, I'm arresting you then.
*THUNK*
Officer: You're supposed to duck your head when getting in the car, sir. Sir? Sir are you awake?
Officer: Well, I guess I don't need a warrant now.

[Recursion]

7. This

Exactly. I'm already predicting the first case where an officer chokes a suspect out and then draws blood.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. The Officer's body camera will have been mysteriously turned off.

[Recursion]

14. Or just fallen off

They seem to use only a millimeter of masking tape or something to keep them on. I remember one where two officers shot an unarmed man, immediately after both their body cameras fell off. The two other officers who collected the convenience store's security camera footage also had their body cameras fall off before they did so.

[2naSalit]

17. Exactly! ...nt

[murielm99]

8. All states should have implied consent laws.

Have you ever had a friend or family member mangled or killed by a drunk driver who did not have to prove anything?

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Blackstone's Formulation.

Better than 10 guilty men go free, than one innocent man convicted. (Needs modern gender update, but you take the meaning I'm sure.)


This is not how we do evidence/due process in the US. We don't predicate violations of due process on the perceived 'vileness' of the alleged crime. A warrant is not a high bar, preventing blood draws. Warrants are easy, and prevent fishing expeditions.

I'm not particularly interested in defending impaired drivers. It's the principle. This finding will be abused, and it will begin to creep into other areas.

[murielm99]

11. There are many states that have implied consent laws

and have had them for many years. I support this.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. If Implied Consent is the national standard, I will accept it.

This ruling did more harm than good.

[mwooldri]

20. For commercial motor vehicle drivers, it is.

https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/safetyplanner/MyFiles/SubSections.aspx?ch=23&sec=67&sub=159

This is at the federal level. As a long distance truck driver, I'm subject to federal motor carrier safety administration's rules. While it is right that as a professional driver I should be held to a higher standard, some things that apply only to commercial drivers should be applied to everyone who drives a motor vehicle.

[not fooled]

13. Mandatory DNA samples from everyone at birth

and intragov't access to the genetic profiles. After all, you might have some markers for behavior that would harm others.

And, of course, the gov't can sell the genetic info to corporations including insurance companies.


That's where this is going.

[2naSalit]

18. +1

[nvme]

15. Implied Consent

Privacy is something we should cherish, but I do believe anyone who is suspected of drunk driving should be compelled to provide breathe or blood without a warrant. With Uber and other ride share apps it is no longer acceptable that drunk driving should be tolerated. We must grow the fuck up as a culture and no put lives in danger. Deaths by drunk driver is totally preventable.

[yaesu]

16. After WWII my war vet uncle was thrown in jail down south for public intoxication

not sure if he was driving, anyway, when he didn't sober up they had a doc check him out, he died a few days later from complications do to a brain tumor. Cops are not trained enough to have this much power to decide why john or jane doe is passed out, call ES, have them checked out.

[mwooldri]

19. For commercial motor vehicle drivers, implied consent is nationwide.

I can either take the test or lose my license (and my job). This standard is already in place at the federal level, and I support it.

While a crash involving a personal motor vehicle is generally not as deadly as one involving a commercial motor vehicle, dead is still dead and if the "search" is limited in scope to determining DUI then a body fluid sample should be obtained.

Driving is a privilege and is not a right.

[Historic NY]

21. Wow in NY State for years there were Judges were on call

for cases where blood or urine was needed. In particular with major accident or fatality. The Judge would record a sworn deposition from an officer, ask questions, and then rule if there was enough probable cause to issue the warrant.

[JohnnyRingo]

22. Another step closer to a police state.

Unable to decline consent because someone is unconscious is bullshit. this means just using a public road is consent to a random blood test.

I say random because there's no requirement to suspect intoxication. Police will be able to test anyone who is in an accident and unable to refuse a blood test, so they will.