...but still...
Police will be allowed to order blood drawn from a person suspected of driving while intoxicated without judicial review under certain circumstances, including instances in which the suspect is a repeat offender, a passenger died or in which a child under 15 was a passenger in the vehicle....isn't this sort of thing blatantly unconstitutional? See the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.I am not usually sympathetic to what a defense attorney has to say, but Doug Murphy is exactly right when he says that if you put too much power in one agency it will run amok. (see: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)
And of course the prosecutor would cite public safety as the overriding concern here. One wonders what other parts of the Bill of Rights he would suspend in the name of that. The Second Amendment immediately comes to mind, especially considering that certain other cities have done just that. And then I'm sure the Fifth Amendment has caused him all sorts of trouble too.
Then there's the law prof's mention that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that this sort of thing is hunky-dory. Tell me again, the value of following the stare decisis doctrine...?
(Welcome, visitors from Chron.com! Main page is here, pull up a seat & stay a while!)
|