Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mitchell v Wisconsin. I agree with Gorsuch on this one. The majority was wrong. They held cops can draw your blood without a warrant as long as you’re unconscious. SC is on a bad decision roll today.
"Indeed, not only is the link to pressing interests here tighter; the interests themselves are greater: Drivers who are drunk enough to pass out at the wheel or soon afterward pose a much greater risk," Alito wrote.
Terrible. This is making the assumption they are guilty because they are unconscious. Never mind it's as likely they are unconscious because of the crash. What this ends up doing is allowing the police to take the blood of anyone not conscious without a warrant.
Our civil rights are not based upon our ability to state them either. I can say "No", to a breathalyzer or blood draw. The options then are suspending my license or getting a warrant. Just because I can not at the time actually state my objection that does not negate my rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
