[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 # 74. 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 ...
#48. To: misterwhite (#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.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#48) "There have been many decisions that recognize driving as a right." Really? Well if it's a right then everyone has that right, correct? Meaning everyone can drive a car, correct? That's your position?
#60. To: misterwhite (#59) Meaning everyone can drive a car, correct? Yep. They don't need no steenking licences or vehicle inspections.
#66. To: Roscoe (#60) "They don't need no steenking licences or vehicle inspections." They have rights, dammit! And no one can infringe those rights with age restrictions and tests and licenses and stupid Rules of the Road. If a drunk 10-year-old wants to hop in dad's car and hit the road, he has a God- given right to do so!
#70. To: misterwhite (#66) The rules are the constitution. You have a fifth amendment right to be secure in your papers person and effects. That means they can't constitutionally pass a law requiring you to surrender those documents. Which they do in order to get a "license". The difference between you and I. I belive in freedom. You believe you unconstitutional government micromanagement and control over the people. It is as simple as that.
#74. To: A K A Stone (#70) The difference between you and I. I belive in freedom. I can't help but wonder why a couple of dyed-in-the-wool statist shills would even want to post at a site called Liberty's Flame. Those two yahoos have utterly no concept of liberty.
Replies to Comment # 74. I can't help but wonder why a couple of dyed-in-the-wool statist shills would even want to post at a site called Liberty's Flame. I understand. It is for fun. They like to talk about this stuff. They are ok despite me calling one of them a pussy. They are right on some issues. They just want the government to control us to much. They must live in fear of people with real freedoms. I don't think they are bad or evil. They are just week and need to feel safe from real men who know what freedom is. It is really a feminine characteristic. You know that need to be protected. So I guess we could just say they are very feminine.
#80. To: Deckard (#74) "The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson
End Trace Mode for Comment # 74. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|