╌>

Supreme Court Won't Hear Dispute Over DUI Blood Tests

  

Category:  Other

Via:  nona62  •  9 years ago  •  13 comments

Supreme Court Won't Hear Dispute Over DUI Blood Tests

Supreme Court Won't Hear Dispute Over DUI Blood Tests

The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from Colorado officials who want to make it easier for authorities to take blood samples from suspected drunk drivers without their permission or a warrant.

The justices on Monday let stand a state supreme court ruling that excluded evidence of a Colorado man's blood test that showed his blood-alcohol level at the time of a traffic accident was nearly three times the legal limit.

Colorado had argued that police should be allowed to order blood samples when there is not enough time to get a warrant before blood alcohol levels decrease.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that authorities must consider several factors and be able to justify why they did not obtain a warrant before drawing blood.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/wirestory/supreme-court-hear-dispute-dui-blood-tests-28167157


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Nona62
Professor Silent
link   seeder  Nona62    9 years ago

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that authorities must consider several factors and be able to justify why they did not obtain a warrant before drawing blood.

 
 
 
Nona62
Professor Silent
link   seeder  Nona62    9 years ago

A lot of people know that if they refuse a breathalyzer test and have to wait for the officer to get a warrant, their blood level could decrease into a more normal level, unless they are just totally pickled. Years ago, my oldest daughter got a DUI 3 doors down from her house..she took a breathalyzer. Her friends told he to NEVER take a breathalyzer! Well, she lost her license for a couple of months and couldn't drive anywhere except to work and back...PERIOD!! Needless to say, she has never driven drunk again..

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
link   Robert in Ohio    9 years ago

Raven Wing

I agree with your proposal.

Ohio has an implied consent law --

Implied Consent

Ohio law requires you to take a blood, breath, or urine test if you are arrested for an OVI . Ohios implied consent law says that if you are lawfully arrested by an officer who has probable cause to believe that you have been operating under the influence, then you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol content (BAC). The test must be taken within two hours of driving and the officer gets to choose which test you take.

You could be arrested for an OVI even if you are not driving. If you have physical control of a vehicle while under the influence, then that can be enough for an officer to arrest you. In Ohio, physical control of a vehicle means being in the drivers seat and having the keys, even if the keys are not in the ignition.

 
 
 
retired military ex Republican
Freshman Silent
link   retired military ex Republican    9 years ago

Dam good law and I live in Ohio.

 
 
 
Nona62
Professor Silent
link   seeder  Nona62    9 years ago

Well, she did run into a telephone...(3 houses away from her house) But, not much damage to her car, as she was driving slowly. Oh, she got to spend a couple of hours behind bars.....I think that taught her a valuable lesson. Live and learn!

 
 
 
Nona62
Professor Silent
link   seeder  Nona62    9 years ago

(I meant to say telephone pole) Yes, it's a very good lesson she learned and learned it well.

 
 
 
deepwater don
Freshman Silent
link   deepwater don    9 years ago

I think WA has a version of the 'implied consent' law too. Congrats to your daughter Nona. Same thing happened to me. Been nearly 45 yrs. since my last drink.

 
 
 
Nona62
Professor Silent
link   seeder  Nona62    9 years ago

Congratulations dd! One day at a time....After that incident, she wouldonly drinkoccasionally, now that she' pregnant, she stopped completely, and quit smoking. I hope she doesn't start smoking again once she has the baby.

 
 

Who is online



544 visitors