SCOTUS rules against warrantless DWI blood draws

[A-R]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/justice/c ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Austin PD immediately suspends the practice

http://m.statesman.com/news/news/local- ... sts/nXPdL/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[gthaustex]

And then I hear this morning that they have only suspended the practice so that the Austin legal eagles can assess under what conditions a warrantless search can still be performed. They claimed that the SCOTUS ruling did allow for such searches under certain circumstances and as soon as they were sure what those were, they would go back to doing blood draws as before........

[texanjoker]

By doing this, what is really accomplished? LEO's will now fill out check box search warrants, get a judge to sign based on their probable cause, and still take the blood.

[mojo84]

By doing this, what is really accomplished? LEO's will now fill out check box search warrants, get a judge to sign based on their probable cause, and still take the blood.

I think that is what they do in San Antonio. No refusal weekend has expand to every day of the year.

[baldeagle]

By doing this, what is really accomplished? LEO's will now fill out check box search warrants, get a judge to sign based on their probable cause, and still take the blood.

It narrows the field of things the police can do without a warrant. It makes them think twice about collecting evidence without a warrant, which is a good thing. In this case the guy was clearly drunk. Waiting for a warrant would not have hindered the investigation or the collection of evidence. The exigent circumstances exception generally says that if it's possible for the suspect to destroy evidence, then you can take the evidence without first getting a warrant. But humans have no control over what's in their blood, so waiting for a warrant before taking their blood is required.

Think about it like this. A cop pulls you over. He makes up PC to arrest you and then takes your blood. The blood sample turns out to have something other than what he suspected but gives him grounds to charge you with a crime. Was the search legal? Well, that's up to a judge to determine, not the officer. The warrant must articulate the PC and the judge must decide if it justifies drawing blood before the police get to force you to give a blood sample.

[Vol Texan]

Well, not that I drink and drive (I don't even drink that often)...but I wonder if I can use my medical condition (trypanophobia) to avoid getting blood drawn?

Although most phobias are dangerous to some degree, needle phobia is one of the few that actually kills. In cases of severe phobia, the drop in blood pressure caused by the vasovagal shock reflex may cause death. In Hamilton's 1995 review article on needle phobia, he was able to document 23 deaths as a direct result of vasovagal shock during a needle procedure.

[texanjoker]

By doing this, what is really accomplished? LEO's will now fill out check box search warrants, get a judge to sign based on their probable cause, and still take the blood.

It narrows the field of things the police can do without a warrant. It makes them think twice about collecting evidence without a warrant, which is a good thing. In this case the guy was clearly drunk. Waiting for a warrant would not have hindered the investigation or the collection of evidence. The exigent circumstances exception generally says that if it's possible for the suspect to destroy evidence, then you can take the evidence without first getting a warrant. But humans have no control over what's in their blood, so waiting for a warrant before taking their blood is required.

Think about it like this. A cop pulls you over. He makes up PC to arrest you and then takes your blood. The blood sample turns out to have something other than what he suspected but gives him grounds to charge you with a crime. Was the search legal? Well, that's up to a judge to determine, not the officer. The warrant must articulate the PC and the judge must decide if it justifies drawing blood before the police get to force you to give a blood sample.

I respect that opinion, but this is one area I don't necessarily agree on. Waiting for a warrant will hinder the collection of a true BAC reading and evidence will be lost. As I recall from training, and it changes as the years go by, BAC goes up/down 2% or so per hour. Anybody can go find stats on the 'net, but one thing is certain is that while one waits for a warrant, the BAC reading is changing. For a normal DWI that is not a big deal, but for an injury case it might be a game changer. The officer will have their PC as they already made the arrest. Giving credit to your concern about a cop making up PC, in that scenario the officer will also present the same template search warrant indicating they found X Y Z to establish PC. While they may be lying, the judge will probably sign it as they don't know and the sample is collected. I can tell you that I, like most LEO's would step up if we saw another LEO lying. There is NO place for a LEO that lies.

On the other side, I am very glad to see SCOTUS concerned about peoples 4th amendment rights . As modern technology keeps increasing, we keep loosing.

[baldeagle]

By doing this, what is really accomplished? LEO's will now fill out check box search warrants, get a judge to sign based on their probable cause, and still take the blood.

It narrows the field of things the police can do without a warrant. It makes them think twice about collecting evidence without a warrant, which is a good thing. In this case the guy was clearly drunk. Waiting for a warrant would not have hindered the investigation or the collection of evidence. The exigent circumstances exception generally says that if it's possible for the suspect to destroy evidence, then you can take the evidence without first getting a warrant. But humans have no control over what's in their blood, so waiting for a warrant before taking their blood is required.

Think about it like this. A cop pulls you over. He makes up PC to arrest you and then takes your blood. The blood sample turns out to have something other than what he suspected but gives him grounds to charge you with a crime. Was the search legal? Well, that's up to a judge to determine, not the officer. The warrant must articulate the PC and the judge must decide if it justifies drawing blood before the police get to force you to give a blood sample.

I respect that opinion, but this is one area I don't necessarily agree on. Waiting for a warrant will hinder the collection of a true BAC reading and evidence will be lost. As I recall from training, and it changes as the years go by, BAC goes up/down 2% or so per hour. Anybody can go find stats on the 'net, but one thing is certain is that while one waits for a warrant, the BAC reading is changing. For a normal DWI that is not a big deal, but for an injury case it might be a game changer. The officer will have their PC as they already made the arrest. Giving credit to your concern about a cop making up PC, in that scenario the officer will also present the same template search warrant indicating they found X Y Z to establish PC. While they may be lying, the judge will probably sign it as they don't know and the sample is collected. I can tell you that I, like most LEO's would step up if we saw another LEO lying. There is NO place for a LEO that lies.

On the other side, I am very glad to see SCOTUS concerned about peoples 4th amendment rights . As modern technology keeps increasing, we keep loosing.

SCOTUS acknowledge that but ruled that the change wasn't sufficient to rise to the level of exigent circumstances.

Here's what I'm wondering. If we know that BAC changes at the rate of 2% per hour and it takes four hours to get the warrant and take the sample, can't the DA argue in court that the true BAC is 8% higher than the measured BAC? After all, it's scientifically valid.

[JSThane]

If we know that BAC changes at the rate of 2% per hour and it takes four hours to get the warrant and take the sample, can't the DA argue in court that the true BAC is 8% higher than the measured BAC? After all, it's scientifically valid.

I thought that was already the case in multiple jurisdictions.

[A-R]

Well, not that I drink and drive (I don't even drink that often)...but I wonder if I can use my medical condition (trypanophobia) to avoid getting blood drawn?

Although most phobias are dangerous to some degree, needle phobia is one of the few that actually kills. In cases of severe phobia, the drop in blood pressure caused by the vasovagal shock reflex may cause death. In Hamilton's 1995 review article on needle phobia, he was able to document 23 deaths as a direct result of vasovagal shock during a needle procedure.

Why not? Libtards use their condition to avoid upholding the 2nd Amendment.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[gigag04]

It takes me less than 4 hours from time of stop to prisoner booked, paperwork dome.

Time of stop to blood draw, with a warrant, is just about an hour in most cases. I'd guess about 65% of my cases were consent.

[Originalist]

If we know that BAC changes at the rate of 2% per hour and it takes four hours to get the warrant and take the sample, can't the DA argue in court that the true BAC is 8% higher than the measured BAC? After all, it's scientifically valid.

I thought that was already the case in multiple jurisdictions.

There are a lot of factors that play into a BAC measurement. For starters the liver metabolizes alcohol at the rate of .015 of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) per hour however that is dependant on when you stopped drinking and whether or not you ate before hand. Eating before hand can decrease the amount of alcohol metabolized.

If I stop you 1 hour after drinking your BrAC/BAC could very well still be on the rise so an argument could be made that at the time of arrest BAC was lower/higher but you would have to know the exact circumstances and that is impossible. Your BAC might not stop rising for a few hours after you had your last drink, again depending on when you ate, etc. Also, livers exposed to heavy drinking mtabolize at a slower rate.

I think the idea of obtaining a warrant is a good protection of the 4th Amendment in so that typically if someone is driving drunk and their ability is noticably affected (i.e. I can run the standardized field sobriety tests on someone and given their performance I can give you an estimate that consistently will be within 0.02 of their measured BAC (either blood/breath).

Furthermore, 0.08 is a presumptive level of intoxication. If their behavoir and abilties are noticeably diminished, as a result of drugs, alcohol or other substance, they are just as guilty of DWI.

ETA: I have DWI convictions with no BrAC/BAC as well as one as low as 0.039. It is rememberable because she was speeding, hopped a curb and parked ontop of a pile of asphault for a construction project on Lackland AFB. I am talking, the car was tetering on the top of that triagle cone. She was 100 lbs soaking wet and our IG Inspection was going on at the time (my flight got recognized for our performance and professionalism)

[texanjoker]

By doing this, what is really accomplished? LEO's will now fill out check box search warrants, get a judge to sign based on their probable cause, and still take the blood.

It narrows the field of things the police can do without a warrant. It makes them think twice about collecting evidence without a warrant, which is a good thing. In this case the guy was clearly drunk. Waiting for a warrant would not have hindered the investigation or the collection of evidence. The exigent circumstances exception generally says that if it's possible for the suspect to destroy evidence, then you can take the evidence without first getting a warrant. But humans have no control over what's in their blood, so waiting for a warrant before taking their blood is required.

Think about it like this. A cop pulls you over. He makes up PC to arrest you and then takes your blood. The blood sample turns out to have something other than what he suspected but gives him grounds to charge you with a crime. Was the search legal? Well, that's up to a judge to determine, not the officer. The warrant must articulate the PC and the judge must decide if it justifies drawing blood before the police get to force you to give a blood sample.

I respect that opinion, but this is one area I don't necessarily agree on. Waiting for a warrant will hinder the collection of a true BAC reading and evidence will be lost. As I recall from training, and it changes as the years go by, BAC goes up/down 2% or so per hour. Anybody can go find stats on the 'net, but one thing is certain is that while one waits for a warrant, the BAC reading is changing. For a normal DWI that is not a big deal, but for an injury case it might be a game changer. The officer will have their PC as they already made the arrest. Giving credit to your concern about a cop making up PC, in that scenario the officer will also present the same template search warrant indicating they found X Y Z to establish PC. While they may be lying, the judge will probably sign it as they don't know and the sample is collected. I can tell you that I, like most LEO's would step up if we saw another LEO lying. There is NO place for a LEO that lies.

On the other side, I am very glad to see SCOTUS concerned about peoples 4th amendment rights . As modern technology keeps increasing, we keep loosing.

SCOTUS acknowledge that but ruled that the change wasn't sufficient to rise to the level of exigent circumstances.

Here's what I'm wondering. If we know that BAC changes at the rate of 2% per hour and it takes four hours to get the warrant and take the sample, can't the DA argue in court that the true BAC is 8% higher than the measured BAC? After all, it's scientifically valid.

The attorneys already argue that. The defense will say you went up while waiting and were legal to drive and the prosecution will say the opposite.