Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles
Title: Cops Put Bag On Woman’s Head, Strap Her To Chair And Choke Her To Draw Blood For DUI Test
Source:
Prison Planet
URL Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/lawsuit ... o-draw-blood-for-dui-test.html
Published: Feb 09, 2015
Author: Prisonplanet.com
Post Date: 2015-02-10 00:46:24 by GeorgiaConservative
Keywords: police, cops
Views: 26537
Comments: 69
A woman is suing a host of parties after it emerged that cops in Austin, Texas, forcably took her blood for a DUI test, in a scene that sounds more like something that would occur at a Guantanamo Bay prison camp. Caroline Callaway was arrested by a police officer after she refused to take a breath test during a routine traffic stop. Ms Callaway was taken directly to the Travis County jail where the shocking events unfolded. Callaway’s attorney told reporters with Courthouse News that despite only “passive and verbal resistance” she was taken “to a small padded room, where she was surrounded by officers and strapped into ‘the chair,’ with her legs, wrists and shoulders restrained.” Callaway, who had informed the police that she suffers from anxiety disorder and uses medications for the ailment, then “began to involuntarily tremble from anxiety and fear.” This prompted the cops to put a bag, known as a “Tranzport Hood,” over her head to deprive the senses, in some backwards notion that this would have a calming effect. All the hood did was cause Callaway to panic further as she could not see what was happening and had further difficulty breathing. A contracted nurse was on hand to perform the blood draw, but according to the complaint, “the needle popped out because of Ms. Callaway’s shaking and blood spewed onto one of the officers.” “(D)efendants continued the abuse determined to take Ms. Callaway’s blood. In order to stop Ms. Callaway from trembling, one of the officers used choke hold pressure points on her neck, until her body went limp.” the complaint further notes. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-24) not displayed.
.
.
.
#25. To: tpaine (#22)
(Edited)
You see, this was a condition of the continuing debate. That you aren't the final say in grey areas. You know as well as I do the the USC has ruled forced blood draws NOT a constitutional violation. I can't debate you if you intentionally spin facts.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I agree. Make the determination based on the officer's observation -- the way the person was driving, their appearance, alcohol on breath, slurred speech, etc. If, as a result of those observations, the person is arrested for DUI, then THEY may request the officer to perform a DUI test to prove their innocence.
Only one hole in your plan, the defendant doesn't have to prove Jack-shit. You're opening up a whole can of constitutional worms.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
You mean you don't care what five corrupt black robes on the U.S. Supreme Court say. Seems to me that if they're corrupt they should be impeached -- not ignored. Are those five still corrupt when they rule in favor of an issue you support?
Are those five still corrupt when they rule in favor of an issue you support? What I am saying is that I live by moral code not the law. I don't break the law because most laws are just. Murder, theft etc. If 5 corrupt judges come to the truth then it is still the truth. You would have to give me an example to tell you if I disagree or agree. I can accept that everything isn't my way. I don't like it when they obviously violate the constitution.
The 5th exists, but GrandIsland, gatlin, and misterwhite claim that States have the power to ignore it. No, it is imperative that the States honor the 5th. Constitutional rights trump police investigations. I'm not 'the final say', the Constitution is.. Try to refute the words of the constitution, not mine. And if you look at their 'rulings', the opinions are NOT unanimous. There is dissent, and they can be overturned. I'm giving you constitutional facts, not spin. -- But if you claim there's spin, specify it, if you can. - I claim you can't. Another constitutionally debatable 'law' and concept. Our right to travel is beyond dispute. (Or should be) -- Thus, our mode of travel (our right to drive) should only be subject to reasonable regulations, which do NOT include blood tests. Can you agree?
Actually it is a right. The right travel. If you can't drive you can't survive or can barely survive. You should be to lose that right if you do something like drive drunk. But the default position should be/acutally is that driving is a right. There were several court cases confirming this before the entire system became corrupt. So corrupt it is facing collapse.
You're right. He doesn't have to. He can go to court and listen to the officer describe why he was arrested for DUI -- weaving all over the road, eyes red, speech blurred, reeking of alcohol -- and as his defense offer ... diddley-squat. My plan offers him a choice and retains his rights. Rather than being forced to take some DUI test, the arrest is based on the officer's observation. If the driver knows he's not impaired, he can insist on a DUI test (breath or blood) and settle the matter with the officer right then and there. Or not. Justice is served and no rights are violated. Why not?
The law IS the aggregate moral code of society. Given that we'll never get 320 million people to agree 100%, the practical solution is to go with the majority. Although you're free to be more moral than the aggregate, being less moral has consequences. "I don't like it when they obviously violate the constitution." It's not that obvious to me. As I pointed out in my post #23, there are a large number of ways by which an individual could incriminate themselves. Hell, simply having them appear in a line-up can be construed as self-incrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Founders were referring to verbal communication.
The court has ruled that the 5th amendment is "a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from a defendant." Very narrow. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Founders were referring to verbal communication. Those two opinions of yours on the 5th, --- contradict each other and don't make sense. --- Can you explain? s Our supreme law, the Constitution, protects us from 'majority rule', --- by insisting that there are individual rights that cannot be infringed by any 'practical solution'. --- Can you admit that truth?
I'm familiar with this concept. I don't necessarily disagree, but the SCOTUS does. We can't make our own rules based on individual opinions. It's a slippery slope
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Driving is not a right... it's a privledge. -- GrandIsland Another constitutionally debatable 'law' and concept. Our right to travel is beyond dispute. (Or should be) -- Thus, our mode of travel (our right to drive) should only be subject to reasonable regulations, which do NOT include blood tests. Can you agree? We agree. - It puzzles me why anyone would disagree... Nope, they've never really opined on that percise point, if memory serves. -- SOTUS uses the reasonable regulation dodge to avoid such a 'ruling'. We made our own rules in the Constitution, based on individual rights. You slippery States Rights advocates opine that majority rule is the way to go. It's not.
Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22
Come on Stone, so I'm correct in assuming you don't have a drivers license? Be honest.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
It appears not... Poor fella. He must be so heartbroken about palmdales suspension, that he's struck dumb.
I don't think Palmdale was sudpended. It's my understanding he voluntarily quit posting.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Am I correct in assuming your 16 years old and a wannabe cop?
It's been ruled by a few different STATE appellate or Supreme Courts. The USSC would never rule that driving on public roadways is a constitutional right... not even if all the justices were Scalia.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Am I correct in assuming your 16 years old and a wannabe cop? So why would you, after all these intelligent posts, back and fourth... post such a childish retort? My question was reasonable.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Misterwhite must be so heartbroken about palmdales suspension, that he's struck dumb. We all know you don't spend much time thinking, but what gave you the idea that his leaving was voluntary? Do you mean after Stone gave him a temporary suspension, he quit LF in a snit?
No. He sent a private message stating his intent on the day of his last posts.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Be honest I drove without a license for over 10 years. I have one now. I didn't get a dui or anything. The insurance just lapsed around Christmas one year. Then they suspended it. I beat them in court on several occasions. Cop didn't show up. They change the charge to no operators license. My funnest was when I went to Fariborn Municipal Court. I found a brief on the internet based on Pennsylvania law. I looked up the appropriate parts and made it conform to Ohio. It was like 35 pages. The Judge ruled against me. I was preparing to choose the jury. Looking over the pamphlet. I was representing myself. They called me to court to discuss the case before jury selection. I remember it very well. The judge told me that I wasn't to bring up the constitution and that she already ruled against my motions. She just ruled against them without explaining why. Anyhow. She asked if I understood that I was not to bring up the constitution in the case. I remember plain as day what I said back. I said "I understand that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. She was mad you could see it in the bitches face. Then I asked her if I could ask a question. I asked her "if the constitution of the United States of America was in effect in her courtrooom. She said "that is offensive I refuse to answer that question". I shot back "Let the record show that the judge has refused to acknowledge that the constitution of the United States oF America is in effect in this courtroom. She was even more pissed. She threw the gavel down and adjourned. They took me back to the room to keep making the jury selection. Not 5 minutes later the prosecutor came in and said they made a mistake in the way that they filed my charges and that they were dropping the driving without a license charge. But they would keep the reckless operation of a motor vehicle charge. Which you don't get a jury trial for. The bitch didn't listen to or consider anything and she found me guilty. What was the reckless operation. My tire went flat and it was on the side of the road. It was a firstone tire by the way before all that stuff about firestone tires broke. Not that that was necessarily the reason. Also something I didn't mention above. When we went to the consultation or whatever you call it when I was before the Judge. They asked if I objected to a Federal Ovserver witting with the prosecutor. I didn't object I wasn't prepared for a question like that. But why would a federal repersentative be there for a case as insignificant as mine. I wondered that afterward. I was prepared. Had poster boards and everything. I was going to smoke them and take up all day, or as much time as possible. Another case. Oakwood Ohio. The Judge kept stopping me from taling with sidebars. I was tryint go tell the jury that they had the right to decide the facts and the LAW. The judge didn't like that. I asked him in the sidebar if he Knew that my position was the same as John Jay's the first supreme court justice. He wasn't going to let me say anything. So I changed stategies. I held up a copy of the constitution. I told the jury this is a copy of the constitution. I guess it is of no effect in this court. Then I ripped it up and rested my case. During jury deliberations I sat in the Judges chamber and talked to him. He was actually kind of friendly. The prosecutor didn't like that at all. One thing I asked him was why is that gold fringe around the American flag? He said "someone has told you something". I don't remember the other details of our conversation. Anyhow the jury came back with a question. I don't remember what it was. Then later the jury found me guilty. Ok one more. I got a public defender. Worst result out ever. I got 30 days house arrest. The public defender was a joke. Another case. Kettering Ohio. The law says there is an exception if there is an emergency. It was a slow winter. My heat went out. I had to get a thermostat to make the heater work. My defense was going to be it was an emergency because my heat was out and I needed money to buy a new thermostat. This was about a week before Christmas. The public defender came up to me and wanted to make sure I wanted to represent myself. I told him how I planned to defend myself. Side note I also had 3 of my cute little kids with me for jury sympathy. The defender said he didn't know if that would work. He asked me if he could get it reduced to no operator license if I would take that deal. I said yes. No operator license just means you didn't have it on you. I took the deal. The Judge asked if I had insurance. I did. They usually have to check. He didn't check and said just mark it that he has it. Merry Christmas. Filing motions to delay the trial and get it near Christmas was also part of my strategy. Ok another. I took an alternative way home from my fishing trip to Lake Cumberland in Kentucky. Instead of going interstate 75 I decided to go the country way. I got caught speeding going 66 in a 55. It was just 65 a min ago and i got a ticket. What was interesting was that I had my SKS along with a 2 liter bottle filled with hollow point bullets in my van. I also had a machete that we were going to use to hack through the woods. The cop told me he could get me for concealed deadly weapon on the machete. But he didn't because he believed me I guess. I plead not guilty. Got my van back with my wife's help. Then drove away never to return. Statute of limitations of probably passed now. I guess you would think I'm a bad boy.
Our right to travel is beyond dispute. (Or should be) -- Thus, our mode of travel (our right to drive) should only be subject to reasonable regulations, which do NOT include blood tests. Can you agree? Nope, they've never really opined on that percise point, if memory serves. -- SOTUS uses the reasonable regulation dodge to avoid such a 'ruling'. You agree that the SCOTUS has never so opined. Thanks. How clever. We've already established that driving can be reasonably regulated. But is infringing on the 5th (by requiring blood tests) to do so reasonable? No way..
If you are tot be secure in your papers person and effect. That you need a search warrant to get to that. How can requiring you to give that info to the BMV be constitutional. They didn't get a search warrant for that information. Another angle.
One more case. I got my license back. Then was pulled over on the way home. The cop said the computer said I didn't have license. I had one it took me thousands of dollars and a lot of running around. The next day I was still driving as I had a license. A cop at the scene recognized me and pulled me over on the way home from Kroger. That was two tickets in like 3 days. I showed the affirmative action prosecutor that I had a license. She agreed to dismiss the case if I agree to just pay court costs. What I have to pay court costs when you know my license if valid. She said you can take it to trial if you want. I just paid the assholes to avoid missing work and more hassle. I wanted to get a camera in there and record the cunt saying that. But no cameras allowed in building. I would like to punch that cunt in the mouth for being a corrupt piece of shit.
Many times a license that was just reinstated will take 30 days to show the updated status in the states DMV files.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Not at all. You live by the choices you make... and suffer the consequences of those choices. I can respect that.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
It was more then 30 days. It was like a year and a half if I remember correctly. I showed them my license and asked if it was suspended for last 10 or so years how did I get one?
I still believe driving is a right. It was just easier and less expensive to get a license. I guess I am less stubborn then I used to be. It feels good not to be nervouse when a cop gets behind you too. :)
My nephew wants to become a police officer. He already went through the academy once and didn't make it. He wants to be on the SWAT team. I think he has played to much call of duty and Battlefield. He is a good honorable guy though.
He wants to be on the SWAT team. I think he has played to much call of duty and Battlefield. He is a good honorable guy though. I talked my son out of the quest. The job isn't worth doing anymore. The retirement is the only good benefit... and those are getting dwindled down. The job took my soul... and I'll never get it back.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
When a cop is behind you, it's rational to feel nervous, as I can guarantee you. They can find some sort of violation, if they feel like it.
Well not as nervous is probably more accurate. Someone I know knew a cop who said he got nervous when cops were behind him too.
Am I correct in assuming your 16 years old and a wannabe cop? Your question was only reasonable if you make the assumption that I knew of Stone's license problems. --- I did not. How did you know of them?
How did you know of them? He guessed by what I posted.
--- what gave you the idea that his leaving was voluntary? Do you mean after Stone gave him a temporary suspension, he quit LF in a snit? Are you saying that palmdale intended to quit, then goaded Stone into suspending him? --- The thread doesn't read that way.. - Does it?
Deleted by me.. Sorry, I thought I was responding to GrandIsland.
Try talking him into being a Sheriff or Highway Patrol instead, he'd probably like those guys better anyway.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Kewl.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Officers cannot take blood from anyone. In Texas, the blood must be taken by a qualified person pursuant to Texas Transp. Code 724.017. http://law.onecle.com/texas/transportation/724.017.00.html (a) Only a physician, qualified technician, chemist, registered professional nurse, or licensed vocational nurse may take a blood specimen at the request or order of a peace officer under this chapter. The blood specimen must be taken in a sanitary place. (b) The person who takes the blood specimen under this chapter, or the hospital where the blood specimen is taken, is not liable for damages arising from the request or order of the peace officer to take the blood specimen as provided by this chapter if the blood specimen was taken according to recognized medical procedures. This subsection does not relieve a person from liability for negligence in the taking of a blood specimen. (c) In this section, "qualified technician" does not include emergency medical services personnel. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Last modified: August 11, 2007 http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/06/woman-sues-police-for-brutal-blood-draw.htm Friday, February 06, 2015Last Update: 11:18 AM PT Woman Sues Police for Brutal Blood Draw By Ryan Kocian AUSTIN, Texas (CN) - Austin police put a bag over a woman's head, strapped her to a chair and used "choke hold pressure points" to draw her blood for a DUI test, the woman claims in court. Caroline Callaway sued Austin, Travis County, Austin police officers, county sheriff's officers, Pro-touch Nurses and one of its employees, alleging unlawful search and seizure, excessive force, assault and battery, negligence and medical malpractice. [...] Callaway's attorney Daphne Pattison Silverman told Courthouse News that defendant Shannon Ramsey-Graham performed the blood draw, while working for Pro-touch Nurses, which contracts with the Austin Police Department. [...] It [nc - the Complaint] continues: "(D)efendants continued the abuse determined to take Ms. Callaway's blood. In order to stop Ms. Callaway from trembling, one of the officers used choke hold pressure points on her neck, until her body went limp. Defendant Ramsey-Graham stabbed Ms. Callaway again while Ms. Callaway was limp. When the officer released her neck, Ms. Callaway gasped for air. She could not see because there was a bag over her head, but she felt the weight of a boot in the crook of her arm, which, along with the rest of her body, was still tied to the chair. Ms. Callaway was suspected of committing a misdemeanor." [snip] I am unaware of any recognized medical procedure which features permitting a cop to apply a choke hold to render the patient unconscious. Running red lights will not provide probable cause for a blood draw warrant. Prior convictions will not provide probable cause for a blood draw warrant. Possession of marijuana will not provide probable cause for a blood draw warrant to search for alcohol. Blood may be drawn with a warrant or where an emergency provides exigent circumstances. There must be reasonable suspicion to support the stop and probable cause to support the search, and it must comport with state law limitations. The assertion that an involuntary blood draw may be authorized by the state regardless of the circumstances of the arrest is without merit and directly contrary to the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely (17 Apr 2013), linked and quoted at the end of this post. In McNeely, writing for the Court, Justice Sotomayor stated, A routine DWI case requires a warrant to be constitutional. Any state law to the contrary would be unconstitutional. Texas statutes allow an involuntary blood draw with a warrant. The circumstances under which an involuntary blood draw may be authorized are limited by Texas Transp. Code 724.012 and 724.013. Section 724.103 provides: Section 724.012(b) provides: Note that each of the specified requirements must be met for a peace officer to require the taking of a specimed of the person's breath or blood. = = = = = = = = = = http://law.onecle.com/texas/transportation/724.012.00.html (a) One or more specimens of a person's breath or blood may be taken if the person is arrested and at the request of a peace officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person: (1) while intoxicated was operating a motor vehicle in a public place, or a watercraft; or (2) was in violation of Section 106.041, Alcoholic Beverage Code. (b) A peace officer shall require the taking of a specimen of the person's breath or blood if: (1) the officer arrests the person for an offense under Chapter 49, Penal Code, involving the operation of a motor vehicle or a watercraft; (2) the person was the operator of a motor vehicle or a watercraft involved in an accident that the officer reasonably believes occurred as a result of the offense; (3) at the time of the arrest the officer reasonably believes that as a direct result of the accident: (A) any individual has died or will die; or (B) an individual other than the person has suffered serious bodily injury; and (4) the person refuses the officer's request to submit to the taking of a specimen voluntarily. (c) The peace officer shall designate the type of specimen to be taken. (d) In this section, "serious bodily injury" has the meaning assigned by Section 1.07, Penal Code. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1013, § 33, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 422, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. Last modified: August 11, 2007 http://law.onecle.com/texas/transportation/724.013.00.html Except as provided by Section 724.012(b), a specimen may not be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Last modified: August 11, 2007 - - - - - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in orderthat corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 11–1425 MISSOURI, PETITIONER v. TYLER G. MCNEELY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI [April 17, 2013] JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, and IV, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C and III, in which JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE KAGAN join. In Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), this Court upheld a warrantless blood test of an individual arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol because the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened the destruction of evidence.” Id., at 770 (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases. We conclude that it does not, and we hold, consistent with general Fourth Amendment principles, that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances. [2] Opinion of the Court I While on highway patrol at approximately 2:08 a.m., a Missouri police officer stopped Tyler McNeely’s truck after observing it exceed the posted speed limit and repeatedly cross the centerline. The officer noticed several signs that McNeely was intoxicated, including McNeely’s bloodshot eyes, his slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol on his breath. McNeely acknowledged to the officer that he had consumed “a couple of beers” at a bar, App. 20, and he appeared unsteady on his feet when he exited the truck. After McNeely performed poorly on a battery of field sobriety tests and declined to use a portable breath-test device to measure his blood alcohol concentration (BAC), the officer placed him under arrest. The officer began to transport McNeely to the stationhouse. But when McNeely indicated that he would again refuse to provide a breath sample, the officer changed course and took McNeely to a nearby hospital for blood testing. The officer did not attempt to secure a warrant. Upon arrival at the hospital, the officer asked McNeely whether he would consent to a blood test. Reading from a standard implied consent form, the officer explained to McNeely that under state law refusal to submit voluntarily to the test would lead to the immediate revocation of his driver’s license for one year and could be used against himin a future prosecution. See Mo. Ann. Stat. §§577.020.1, 577.041 (West 2011). McNeely nonetheless refused. The officer then directed a hospital lab technician to take a blood sample, and the sample was secured at approximately 2:35 a.m. Subsequent laboratory testing measured McNeely’s BAC at 0.154 percent, which was well above the legal limit of 0.08 percent. See §577.012.1. McNeely was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), in violation of §577.010. He moved to suppress [3] the results of the blood test, arguing in relevant part that, under the circumstances, taking his blood for chemical testing without first obtaining a search warrant violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court agreed. It concluded that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because, apart from the fact that “[a]s in all cases involving intoxication, [McNeely’s] blood alcohol was being metabolized by his liver,” there were no circumstances suggesting the officer faced an emergency in which he could not practicably obtain a warrant. No. 10CG–CR01849–01 (Cir. Ct. Cape Giradeau Cty., Mo., Div. II, Mar. 3, 2011), App. to Pet. for Cert. 43a. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals stated an intention to reverse but transferred the case directly to the Missouri Supreme Court. No. ED 96402 (June 21, 2011), id., at 24a. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. 358 S. W. 3d 65 (2012) (per curiam). Recognizing that this Court’s decision in Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, “provide[d] the backdrop” to its analysis, the Missouri Supreme Court held that “Schmerber directs lower courts to engage in a totality of the circumstances analysis when determining whether exigency permits a nonconsensual, warrantless blood draw.” 358 S. W. 3d, at 69, 74. The court further concluded that Schmerber “requires more than the mere dissipation of blood-alcohol evidence to support a warrantless blood draw in an alcohol-related case.” 358 S. W. 3d, at 70. According to the court, exigency depends heavily on the existence of additional “‘special facts,’” such as whether an officer was delayed by the need to investigate an accident and transport an injured suspect to the hospital, as had been the case in Schmerber. 358 S. W. 3d, at 70, [4] 74. Finding that this was “unquestionably a routine DWI case” in which no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood-alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, the court held that the nonconsensual warrantless blood draw violated McNeely’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person. Id., at 74–75. We granted certiorari to resolve a split of authority on the question whether the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream establishes a per se exigency that suffices on its own to justify an exception to the warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in drunk-driving investigations. See 567 U. S. ___ (2012). We now affirm. [snip]
The Constitution says we SHALL NOT be compelled to provide evidence against ourselves. If you are FORCED to provide that evidence, that is against our rights. If you are FORCED to waive those rights at the point of a gun, is that not another violation of our right protecting us from unlawful imprisonment and forced testimony?
Comments (66 - 69) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNo, it is imperative that the States honor the 5th. Constitutional rights
#26. To: GrandIsland (#20)
"If the lady is easily proven to be drunk and unable to safely drive a vehicle by such old fashioned tools as observation, there is no reason to force her to "donate" blood to prove it."
#27. To: misterwhite (#26)
f, as a result of those observations, the person is arrested for DUI, then THEY may request the officer to perform a DUI test to prove their innocence.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#24)
"I don't care what some corrupt black robe says."
#29. To: misterwhite (#28)
You mean you don't care what five corrupt black robes on the U.S. Supreme Court say. Seems to me that if they're corrupt they should be impeached -- not ignored.
#30. To: GrandIsland (#25)
GrandIsland --- There are a few things, medically, that can look like intoxication. A blood BAC or a breath test is imperative.
You see, this was a condition of the continuing debate. That you aren't the final say in grey areas.
You know as well as I do the the USC has ruled forced blood draws NOT a constitutional violation.
I can't debate you if you intentionally spin facts.
Besides, most states write into their law that an operator can't refuse, upon PC for a DWI arrest. Driving is not a right... it's a privledge.
#31. To: tpaine, GrandIsland (#30)
Driving is not a right... it's a privledge.
#32. To: GrandIsland (#27)
"the defendant doesn't have to prove Jack-shit."
#33. To: A K A Stone (#29)
"What I am saying is that I live by moral code not the law."
#34. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL, ---- Can he, - will he reply? (#33)
Misterwhite (#23)
The law IS the aggregate moral code of society. Given that we'll never get 320 million people to agree 100%, the practical solution is to go with the majority.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#31)
Actually it is a right. The right travel. If you can't drive you can't survive or can barely survive.
#36. To: GrandIsland (#35)
(Edited)
A K A Stone ---- Actually it is a right. The right travel. If you can't drive you can't survive or can barely survive.
GI --- I'm familiar with this concept. I don't necessarily disagree, but the SCOTUS does.
We can't make our own rules based on individual opinions. It's a slippery slope.
#37. To: tpaine, GrandIsland (#36)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#37)
#39. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL, ---- Can he, - will he reply to post 33? (#34)
#40. To: tpaine (#39)
He must be so heartbroken about palmdales suspension
#41. To: GrandIsland (#38)
I'm correct in assuming you don't have a drivers license?
#42. To: tpaine (#36)
Nope, they've never really opined on that percise point, if memory serves. -- SOTUS uses the reasonable regulation dodge to avoid such a 'ruling'.
#43. To: tpaine (#41)
#44. To: GrandIsland (#40)
I don't think Palmdale was sudpended. --- It's my understanding he voluntarily quit posting.
#45. To: tpaine (#44)
#46. To: GrandIsland (#38)
Come on Stone, so I'm correct in assuming you don't have a drivers license?
#47. To: GrandIsland (#42)
(Edited)
I'm familiar with this concept. I don't necessarily disagree, but the SCOTUS does.
It's been ruled by a few different STATE appellate or Supreme Courts.
The USSC would never rule that driving on public roadways is a constitutional right... not even if all the justices were Scalia.
#48. To: tpaine (#47)
#49. To: GrandIsland (#45)
#50. To: A K A Stone (#49)
One more case. I got my license back. Then was pulled over on the way home. The cop said the computer said I didn't have license. I had one it took me thousands of dollars and a lot of running around.
#51. To: A K A Stone (#46)
I guess you would think I'm a bad boy.
#52. To: GrandIsland (#50)
Many times a license that was just reinstated will take 30 days to show the updated status in the states DMV files.
#53. To: GrandIsland (#51)
#54. To: GrandIsland (#51)
#55. To: A K A Stone (#54)
To: GrandIsland My nephew wants to become a police officer. He already went through the academy once and didn't make it.
#56. To: A K A Stone, Y'ALL (#53)
It feels good not to be nervous when a cop gets behind you too. :)
#57. To: tpaine (#56)
When a cop is behind you, it's rational to feel nervous,
#58. To: GrandIsland, Y'ALL (#43)
I'm correct in assuming you don't have a drivers license?
So why would you, after all these intelligent posts, back and fourth... post such a childish retort? ---- My question was reasonable.
#59. To: tpaine (#58)
Your question was only reasonable if you make the assumption that I knew of Stone's license problems. --- I did not.
#60. To: GrandIsland, AKA Stone, Y'ALL (#45)
I don't think Palmdale was sudpended. --- It's my understanding he voluntarily quit posting.
No. He sent a private message stating his intent on the day of his last posts.
#61. To: A K A Stone (#59)
(Edited)
#62. To: A K A Stone (#54)
He wants to be on the SWAT team. I think he has played to much call of duty and Battlefield.
#63. To: tpaine (#44)
Do you mean after Stone gave him a temporary suspension, he quit LF in a snit?
#64. To: Gatlin, GeorgiaConservative, Deckard, A K A Stone (#1)
She also was in possession of marijuana, ran two red lights.
She was convicted of an earlier charge in 2012.
Officers can take blood from citizens with a warrant signed by a judge. § 724.017. BLOOD SPECIMEN.
Courthouse News Service
More states are authorizing forcible blood draws for motorists suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest. Forcible blood draws occur when police hold down a DUI suspect who is unruly or struggling and medical personnel withdraw a blood sample. Texas state statutes specifically allow the procedure.
Finding that this was “unquestionably a routine DWI case” in which no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood-alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, the court held that the nonconsensual warrantless blood draw violated McNeely’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person.
Except as provided by Section 724.012(b), a specimen may not be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer.
(b) A peace officer shall require the taking of a specimen of the person's breath or blood if: (1) the officer arrests the person for an offense under Chapter 49, Penal Code, involving the operation of a motor vehicle or a watercraft; (2) the person was the operator of a motor vehicle or a watercraft involved in an accident that the officer reasonably believes occurred as a result of the offense; (3) at the time of the arrest the officer reasonably believes that as a direct result of the accident: (A) any individual has died or will die; or (B) an individual other than the person has suffered serious bodily injury; and (4) the person refuses the officer's request to submit to the taking of a specimen voluntarily.
§ 724.012. TAKING OF SPECIMEN.
§ 724.013. PROHIBITION ON TAKING SPECIMEN IF PERSON REFUSES; EXCEPTION.
1 Cite as: 569 U. S. ____ (2013) Opinion of the Court
#65. To: GrandIsland (#20)
(Edited)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]