Critics say Ohio DUI bill violates Constitution

[Hannibal]

No need to strap anyone down. Just ask any passerby to bust open the drunks lip.

[Che]

The Original Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
But if you drive in Ohio, you've already given them consent to take your blood, breath, or urine.
Kinda hard to get around that part of the law, isn't it--so people just ignore it.

Its not that easy. You give consent, but you always have the right to revoke it at the cost of your driving privileges. This issue is about an act of the general assembly that at least arguably revokes rights protected by the constitution. That's the rub.

[The Original Realist]

Che wrote:

<quoted text>
Its not that easy. You give consent, but you always have the right to revoke it at the cost of your driving privileges. This issue is about an act of the general assembly that at least arguably revokes rights protected by the constitution. That's the rub.

Taking a breath, blood, or urine sample for testing on a 3rd DUI isn't unreasonable.

How is it unconstitutional again?

[Che]

The Original Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
Taking a breath, blood, or urine sample for testing on a 3rd DUI isn't unreasonable.
How is it unconstitutional again?

Because the US Supreme court, in Schmerber v. California, said police can't forcibly take blood from someone without a warrant.

[NEOH Beemer Rider]

USMC wrote:

I can't believe people are sticking up for fools that put childrens lives in danger. They should be sent to jail for a long long time and you should have no rights the second you get behind the wheel drunk because i am pretty sure the 8 year old little girl they may run over doesn't have any rights then

Nobody is 'sticking up for' drunk drivers. And yes - they should be put in jail for a long time.

Your argument is a false connection - a straw man argument. Those of us who have a problem with this law don't have a problem with aggressively going after drunk drivers and putting them away for a very long time. We have a problem with the useful idiots who would gleefully hand over rights protected by the 4th Amendment in the name if 'safety' and 'security'. Gleefully hand over someone else's rights that is. Can't wait to see how they would react when the barrel of the gun is pointed at THEM, so to speak.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." - Ben Franklin

Perhaps you've heard of him?

[The Original Realist]

Che wrote:

<quoted text>
Because the US Supreme court, in Schmerber v. California, said police can't forcibly take blood from someone without a warrant.

Can't seem to find anything to show your facts as correct. Got a link?

[USMC]

Hector wrote:

<quoted text>
"may run over"?
Isn't that like saying that Marines should all be locked up because they "may" kill civilians instead of combatants?

That is the dumbest comparison i have ever heard.The Marine isn't going out breaking the law and then due to breaking the law kills somebody as a drunk driver does

[The Original Realist]

Another guest wrote:

There is NO link.
Just lots of lip service.

I'm still waiting for a link...

And waiting...and waiting...

[lastword]

State supreme court says you can take blood without a warrant. If any Federal court has ruled on this I don't know.

http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/19407...

In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court said that the "rapid, natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood creates ... a circumstance [requiring immediate attention] that will justify police taking a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw from a defendant" provided the officer has probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed criminal vehicular homicide or operation

[lastword]

http://www.google.com/search...

[The Original Realist]

lastword wrote:

State supreme court says you can take blood without a warrant. If any Federal court has ruled on this I don't know.
http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/19407...
In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court said that the "rapid, natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood creates ... a circumstance [requiring immediate attention] that will justify police taking a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw from a defendant" provided the officer has probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed criminal vehicular homicide or operation

It looked like the US Supreme Court affirmed the decision, as I only found negative wording for constitutional violations in dissent opinions.

Still waiting on that link to the info...

[lastword]

You won't get one since all the searches say blood can be taken without a warrant.

The Original Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
It looked like the US Supreme Court affirmed the decision, as I only found negative wording for constitutional violations in dissent opinions.
Still waiting on that link to the info...

[The Original Realist]

lastword wrote:

You won't get one since all the searches say blood can be taken without a warrant.
<quoted text>

You mean Che was wrong??? Again??? And hasn't posted since???

Imagine that...

[avb1891]

It's quite moronic for some people to have a problem with this. I'm laughing at the comments about how this will infringe on people's rights. Um... how about not being an idiot and getting a DUI to begin with? Did you all read the story? It's meant for people who've had more than 1-2 DUIs. People shouldn't even get ONE DUI, let alone more.
Sure, people are permitted to make mistakes, but really, a DUI is more than just a little mistake, one that should NEVER be repeated. Once one has gotten a DUI, one shouldn't have any rights. The right to remain silent, sure, but not the right to ever drive again. You do something that stupid, you shouldn't be given the chance to do it ever again, and most people who get a DUI get another one. Where will it end? Would it end if your loved one is killed by a drunk idiot behind the wheel?
To the people who have a problem with this law, it's simple -- don't get a DUI, and you'll be fine. They're not going after people with brain cells, they're going after people who are lacking brain cells.