[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: State Supreme Court Just Ruled Mandatory DUI Tests are Unconstitutional On Friday, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the state’s DUI testing refusal law unconstitutional, setting a remarkable precedent concerning forced testing of those suspected of driving under the influence. In a 6-1 ruling, the court decided the state’s law, which had made it a crime to refuse breathalyzer or blood alcohol tests without a court-ordered warrant, is excessive punishment. Those tests, the court found, amounted to searches, and the Kansas law “punishes people for exercising their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” reported the Kansas City Star. “In essence, the state’s reasons are not good enough, and its law not precise enough, to encroach on the fundamental liberty interest in avoiding an unreasonable search,” wrote Justice Marla Luckert for the majority, according to KCTV. According to Kansas law, the act of operating a motor vehicle gives implied consent for breath, blood, or urine testing to prove one’s sobriety, but the Supreme Court ruled the state’s Constitution allows for the withdrawal of consent without punishment for doing so. Previously, refusing a sobriety test qualified as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of no less than $1,250. “Once a suspect withdraws consent, whether it be express consent or implied (under the statute), a search based on that consent cannot proceed,” the court decided. According to the court, the state’s “compelling interest” to combat impaired driving and prosecute cases of DUI does not trump people’s fundamental individual liberties as protected by the Constitution. Justice Caleb Stegall wrote the lone dissenting opinion, saying there are certain situations where the law could adhere to constitutionality, and as such, it should be applied on a case by case basis. “By making this case about consent,” Stegall wrote, “the majority effectively looks at this appeal through the wrong end of the telescope and ends up with a myopic interpretation (of the statute).” There are similar laws from other states currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, and Kansas’ could potentially wind up under the high court’s consideration as well. In a related ruling, the Kansas Supreme Court also decided the case of an individual who consented to testing after being told he would be criminally prosecuted for refusing. According to the court, such a ‘warning’ is considered “coercive,” thus any consent given in such circumstances would be involuntary. “Jay Norton, an Olathe criminal defense lawyer and expert on DUI law, said the law has often been used ‘as a hammer’ to induce people to plead guilty to DUI to avoid being charged with the additional crime of refusing a test,” reported the Star. Norton also said the law represented “prosecutorial overreach at its zenith.” Christopher Mann, who sits on the national board of directors for Mothers Against Drunk Driving and is a former member of the Lawrence Police Department, said the organization didn’t agree with the court’s ruling. “We support penalties for refusing to take chemical tests,” Mann explained. “We think law enforcement members need to have all the tools at their disposal to keep our roads safe from drunken drivers who kill about 10,000 people a year.” “The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of the individual citizen to be free from forced searches by the government,” Norton stated. Friday, Norton enthused, was a “great day” for both the Kansas and U.S. Constitutions. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 47. So, if a driver can refuse breathalyzer or blood alcohol tests without a court- ordered warrant, can they also refuse other sobriety tests (walk a straight line, stand on one leg, etc.)? How will the state enforce drunken driving laws?
#5. To: misterwhite (#2) So, if a driver can refuse breathalyzer or blood alcohol tests without a court- ordered warrant, can they also refuse other sobriety tests (walk a straight line, stand on one leg, etc.)? You have a right not to incriminate yourself. You are innocent until proven guilty. You have a right against involuntary servitude. Something you don;t support or comprehend.
Here you go again worshiping the police state and hoping it destroys the bill of rights.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5) You have a right not to incriminate yourself. And you also have a right to waive that right when it comes to breathalyzers. Like when you apply for a license to drive motor vehicles on public streets.
#16. To: Roscoe (#6) And you also have a right to waive that right when it comes to breathalyzers. Like when you apply for a license to drive motor vehicles on public streets. Are you saying that in order to exercise your right to travel the government wants you to give up another right. That is bullshit. It is kind of like corrupt Ohio. Where in order to get a public defender. Which is a right. They want you to give up the right to a speedy trial. Only an asshole would say you have to give up one right to exercise another one. Oh yes driving is surely 100 percent a right,.
#18. To: A K A Stone (#16) Are you saying that in order to exercise your right to travel the government wants you to give up another right. Nope. You can travel around your backyard in your car all you want, without a license. You can also landscape your backyard, if you choose to do so. But stay off of the public roads built and maintained at taxpayer expense, and regulated by law and license agreements. And don't chop down a tree for firewood at the local park. TANSTAAFL
#41. To: Roscoe (#18) You are a silly man. The right to travel, means to travel the normal highways and byways and engage in commerce in order to conduct business or pleasure. The public roads do not mean someone else owns them, it means WE ALL OWN THEM.
#47. To: jeremiad (#41) "The right to travel, means to travel the normal highways and byways and engage in commerce in order to conduct business or pleasure." Correct. But if you want to use a car ...
Replies to Comment # 47. Correct. But if you want to use a car ... Then you buy it put some gas on it then drive on the roads that you pay a gas tax for. There have been many decisions that recognize driving as a right. If you don't think it is a right it's probably because you suck.
#52. To: misterwhite (#47) But if you want to use a car ... Car? You can't ride a bicycle down the middle of the freeway? It's tyranny I tells ya!!!
#108. To: misterwhite (#47) The rules of travel cannot mean that you give up other rights recognized by government. If the police want to bust people for a DWI, use time tested methods. He was sloshed, couldn't or wouldn't walk a line, so I video taped him and presented it at court, would be logical and not violate his rights. When you make him guilty of the crime just because he refuses to blow in a machine, or let you take his blood, that is offensive to American values. The problem is, the eyewitness testimony with video taping requires cops to show up at court. With readings on a machine, they can spin out convictions in a way to make sure the judges retirement fund is always full up.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 47. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|