Friday, June 11, 2010

Cops must get warrant if DUI suspect balks at blood test

Somewhere, adrift on an ocean of tyranny, isolated, lonely, there are judges out there who have heard of the Bill of Rights and take it seriously. And I think it's high time we get over this snivelrous slave talk that driving is a privilege, not a right. It's your car. You own it. The State does not own the roads. You, the taxpayer does. So no, they do not have the right to do whatever they want to you, because you have no right to drive. Grow a set of balls.

    Arizona Daily Star -

    Blood samples taken from motorists without their explicit on-the-spot consent can't be used to convict them of drunken driving, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Monday.

    The justices acknowledged Arizona has an "implied consent" law saying motorists agree to provide a sample of blood, breath or urine for testing if they are charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

    But Justice Scott Bales said police still need a warrant from a judge to draw blood without the driver's explicit approval.

    Bales, writing for the unanimous court, said the "implied consent" law simply makes giving consent a condition of having an Arizona license. He said that allows motorists to refuse, with the understanding their licenses will be taken away, something that remains unchanged by this ruling.

Read all of it.