- George W. Bush to embattled Alabama kicker: You will be stronger
- Megachurch pastor with ties to Obama commits suicide
- WaPo to readers: Send us your ‘gun violence’ stories for Sandy Hook anniversary
- U.S. threatens Ukraine with sanctions over dispatch of riot police
- Canada doing away with door-to-door mail delivery by 2018
- NSA chief defends phone spying: ‘There is no other way’
- Hawaii Health Department head killed in plane crash
- Colorado school drops sexual harassment label on boy who kissed girl’s hand
- Australia court strikes down 5-day-old, gay-marriage law
- Fake interpreter at Mandela service: ‘Sorry,’ I have schizophrenia
Court weighs warrantless blood tests in DUI cases
Question of the Day
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is considering whether police must get a warrant before ordering a blood test on an unwilling drunken-driving suspect.
The justices heard arguments Wednesday in a case involving a disputed blood test from Missouri. Police stopped a speeding, swerving car and the driver, who had two previous drunken-driving convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body.
The justices appeared to struggle with whether the dissipation of alcohol in the blood over time is reason enough for police to call for a blood test without first getting a warrant.
Lawyers for Missouri and the Obama administration urged the justices to reject the state court decision and allow police to forgo a time-consuming process. In 2010, the administration said, more than 10,000 people died in crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers, an average of one death every 51 minutes.
But several justices suggested that law enforcement officers should at least usually try to obtain a warrant. “Why shouldn’t the determination be made case to case?” Justice Antonin Scalia asked.
All 50 states have laws requiring drivers who are arrested on suspicion of driving while drunk to consent to a blood alcohol test, and refusal to submit to the test generally leads to suspension of a driver license. In addition, prosecutors can use the refusal against a defendant at trial.
In Missouri, a driver who won’t agree to either a breath or blood test can have his license suspended for a year. The American Civil Liberties Union, representing McNeely, said that the suspension is only 30 days for drivers with no previous convictions who take the test and are found to be impaired.
There seemed little dispute that Winder had enough evidence to get a warrant for a blood test, but chose not to. Instead, he drove McNeely to a hospital. A technician drew blood from McNeely, who was handcuffed throughout the process. Winder’s decision set in motion the Supreme Court case.
A decision is expected by summer.
The case is Missouri v. McNeely, 11-1425.
By Matt Kibbe
The short-term deal will assure long-term overspending
- NAPOLITANO: A conspiracy so vast
- All-out war breaks out in GOP over budget pact
- Washington Post to readers: Send us your gun violence stories for Sandy Hook anniversary
- Biden guarantees victory on immigration reform
- MALCOLM/REIMER: Over-criminalization undermines respect for legal system
- Study IDs reasons for late-term abortions
- Obama takes 'selfie' at Mandela's funeral service
- Rand Paul: Budget deal 'shameful,' 'huge mistake'
- Colorado school drops sexual harassment label on boy who kissed girl's hand
- Teen thugs in D.C. run wild -- even while wearing GPS ankle bracelets
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
All of the world’s problems, solved on your back porch
Al Maurer provides a common sense, conservatarian, Constitutional conservative perspective from the battleground state of Colorado
Interviews and show reviews from the Los Angeles punk scene past and present. Los Angeles has always been rich in punk rock talent since punk rock was born.
Buzz on Bees is a column promoting the love and life of God’s greatest pollinators on earth: The Honeybee
Extraordinary day at Redskins Park
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow