SCOTUS drunk driving case looks good for the drunk drivers.

peter.suber's bookmarks 2016-04-22

Summary:

"Wednesday’s case [4/20/16], Birchfield v. North Dakota, involves laws that impose criminal penalties when motorists suspected of drunk driving refuse to take a “chemical test”—usually a blood or breath test. North Dakota, Minnesota, and 10 other states have passed such measures to avoid pesky issues like obtaining a warrant before sticking a needle in a driver’s arm or a tube in her mouth. Danny Birchfield, who was arrested for refusing to take a blood test, argued that these laws violate the Fourth Amendment, which typically requires a warrant before police can conduct a search. North Dakota says motorists give consent to chemical tests when they drive in the state. Birchfield says legally mandated consent is no consent at all...."

Link:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/04/scotus_drunk_driving_case_looks_good_for_the_drunk_drivers.html

From feeds:

Consent and coercion » peter.suber's bookmarks

Tags:

consent

Date tagged:

04/22/2016, 14:42

Date published:

04/22/2016, 10:42