AnCaps
ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS
Bitch-Slapping Statists For Fun & Profit Based On The Non-Aggression Principle
 
HomePortalGalleryRegisterLog in

 

 Statist bloodsuckers: Supreme Court says police don't need a warrant to take the blood of alleged DWI drivers

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
CovOps

CovOps

Female Location : Ether-Sphere
Job/hobbies : Irrationality Exterminator
Humor : Über Serious

Statist bloodsuckers: Supreme Court says police don't need a warrant to take the blood of alleged DWI drivers Vide
PostSubject: Statist bloodsuckers: Supreme Court says police don't need a warrant to take the blood of alleged DWI drivers   Statist bloodsuckers: Supreme Court says police don't need a warrant to take the blood of alleged DWI drivers Icon_minitimeFri Jun 26, 2015 1:05 am

Recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent does not help a drunken-driving suspect whose blood police tested without a warrant after a car crash, a New Jersey appeals court [url=http://recent u.s. supreme court precedent does not help a drunken-driving suspect whose blood police tested without a warrant after a car crash%2C a new jersey appeals court ruled./]ruled[/url].

Statist bloodsuckers: Supreme Court says police don't need a warrant to take the blood of alleged DWI drivers Forcedblood

In that 5-3 majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said bodily metabolization of alcohol does not represent an exigent circumstance that justifies drawing a suspected drunken driver's blood without a warrant. 

"In those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so," she wrote. Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the majority in part. 

Tuesday's opinion still sides with the state, finding that the circumstances of the car accident Jones caused "presented an 'objective exigency.' 

"Viewing the circumstances here objectively, we are satisfied the officer 'might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened 'the destruction of evidence,'" Espinosa wrote.

http://massprivatei.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/supreme-court-says-police-dont-need.html

parasite
Back to top Go down
 

Statist bloodsuckers: Supreme Court says police don't need a warrant to take the blood of alleged DWI drivers

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Anarcho-Capitalist Categorical Imperatives :: Via AnCaps: Law & Enforced Unnatural Order-