WASHINGTON, D.C.-- The Supreme Court is expressing doubts about laws in at least a dozen states that make it a crime for people suspected of drunken driving to refuse to take alcohol tests.
The justices heard arguments Wednesday in three cases challenging North Dakota and Minnesota laws that criminalize a refusal to test for alcohol in a driver's blood, breath or urine even if police have not first obtained a search warrant.
Drivers prosecuted under those laws claim they violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. State supreme courts in Minnesota and North Dakota upheld the laws.
The justices pressed lawyers representing the states on why they can't simply require police to get a warrant every time police want a driver to take an alcohol test. Justice Stephen Breyer pointed to statistics showing that it takes an average of only five minutes to get a warrant over the phone in Wyoming and 15 minutes to get one in Montana.
Thomas McCarthy, the lawyer representing North Dakota, said the state "strikes a bargain" with drivers by making consent to alcohol tests a condition for the privilege of driving on state roads.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
The "strikes a bargain" could be thrown out easily because the "bargain" is coerced through the withholding of service - namely the production of the driver's license - which the applicant is otherwise usually qualified to possess!
ReplyDeleteSame with taking blood from a person. A person cannot be forced to provide evidence that incriminates them. The burden is on the state to prove the case. Not for the person.
ReplyDelete