Strange Stool Fellows

As the saying goes, politics makes strange drinking buddies:

Court Says Police Need Warrant for Blood Test

By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — The fact that alcohol dissipates from the bloodstream over time does not by itself give the police the right to draw blood without a warrant in drunken-driving investigations, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

...

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and, for the most part, Anthony M. Kennedy, affirmed the state court’s decision. Justice Sotomayor said many factors had to be considered in deciding whether a warrant was needed.

“Whether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.

Among the relevant factors, she said, are “the practical problems of obtaining a warrant within a time frame that still preserves the opportunity to obtain reliable evidence.” She said technological developments made promptly obtaining a warrant possible in many circumstances.

So our living, breathing Constitution can be asked to submit to a breathalyzer but not give blood. However, the court was less divided than appears:

...Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr., concurred in part and dissented in part.

Thomas hung up a No Sale sign:

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in the case, Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425. “Nothing in the Fourth Amendment requires officers to allow evidence essential to enforcement of drunk-driving laws to be destroyed while they wait for a warrant to issue,” Justice Thomas wrote.

This is all very topical relative to driving under the influence of marijuana because the breakdown of the testable products that would indicate impairment is quite rapid. And since you ask, smoking and driving don't mix well.

Comments

[Threadkiller]

Train Aldo to sniff and signal on booze...

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a drug-sniffing German shepherd named Aldo in ruling that police do not have to extensively document a dog’s expertise to justify relying on the animal to search someone’s vehicle.

The unanimous court overturned a decision by the Florida Supreme Court. That court had thrown out a 2006 search of a man’s truck after Aldo “alerted” to the smell of drugs, saying police must compile detailed evidence of the dog’s reliability before probable cause to search the vehicle is established.

Justice Elena Kagan said the Florida court had gone too far, and suggested that proper training and certification of the dog — rather than how it has performed in the field — might be enough for law enforcement’s purposes

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-19/politics/37171249_1_oral-arguments-search-warrant-appeals-court

That should take care of "warrant" concerns.

[Danube of Thought]

Good dog. Good dog.

[NK]

Way to go Aldo!

[Jack is Back!]

Kagan is obviously not a dog person. Anyone who has had a dog no matter what breed know that there is nothing they can't do especially when you're not watching:)

[matt]

I had thought that law enforcement could only take blood with the consent of the accused. I am surprised that this can be done with a warrant. It would seem to be a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

Just another erosion of our basic civil rights, I guess.

[Ignatz]

Discussion of blood samples did not cause me to immediately think of bar stools when I read "Strange Stool Fellows'.

[MarkO on laptop]

Coprophagiac.

[Thomas Collins]

CH, this brings back memories of when I was a newbie lawyer at SS&God. I had an emergency assignment to draft a memo on whether it was permissible, under the Ohio and US Constitutions, to draw blood from an unconscious arrestee to test for the Demon Rum. Stayed up all night to draft it (fueled by caffeine and pizza, not booze).

[B Buckner]

Actually a US DOT study concluded smoking a small/moderate amount of marijuana does not impair driving performance.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm

[Thomas Collins]

"Discussion of blood samples did not cause me to immediately think of bar stools when I read "Strange Stool Fellows'."

I think under the SCOTUS decision that is the subject of this thread, Ignatz, taking an enema of the suspect would also require a warrant. :-))

[Ignatz]

--the subject of this thread, Ignatz--

I resent that.

[Thomas Collins]

Whoops! I didn't mean to suggest that you were an arrestee or a stool, Ignatz!

[Ignatz]

Hey if they arrest me and I rat somebody out I could be both. :)

[Abadman]

"Actually a US DOT study concluded ..."

Actually the study was more suggestive than conclusive, and the method of calculating the TCH dosing was so imprecise the findings are essentially meaningless.

[Threadkiller]

"... the findings are essentially meaningless"

Unless you are stoned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSNhk5ICTI

[Abadman]

We just smiled and waved goodbye, sittin' on that sack of seed

"Wildwood weed" 1970 something