Thursday, April 18, 2013

MADD Can’t Be Happy

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court issued one of those rulings that may have huge and wide-ranging consequences.  The justices weighed in on the balancing act between the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure and the public’s need get drunk drivers off the roads.  Although their opinion applies to one specific case in Missouri, prosecutors around the nation are already looking at how this decision will affect laws and procedures in their jurisdictions.

The fact that alcohol dissipates from the bloodstream over time does not by itself give police the right to draw blood without a warrant in drunken-driving investigations, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The ruling immediately got the attention of attorneys in Texas, where warrantless blood draws are allowed by state statute for intoxication manslaughter cases, third-time driving while intoxicated offenses or intoxication assault cases in which someone has been sent to the hospital.

While the court's ruling appears to be “extremely narrow” and not pertaining to Texas law, it does leave a lot of questions unanswered, said Cliff Herberg, Bexar County's first assistant district attorney.

“In an abundance of caution, we're going to be changing our procedures,” he said, explaining that prosecutors locally will now advise police to seek warrants in all felony DWI cases.

The ruling has no bearing on the county's “No Refusal” program, District Attorney Susan Reed was quick to point out on Twitter on Wednesday.

Because it focuses on drivers suspected of misdemeanor DWI, warrants have always been required.

The Supreme Court case arose from the arrest of Tyler McNeely, who was pulled over for speeding on a Missouri highway and exhibited signs of intoxication.

He performed poorly on a field sobriety test and was arrested. He refused to take a breath test and, after being taken to a hospital, to consent to a blood test.

A blood test was performed anyway, about 25 minutes after he was pulled over, and it showed a blood alcohol level of 0.15 percent, almost twice the legal limit.

The state Supreme Court suppressed the evidence, saying there had been no “exigent circumstances” that excused the failure to obtain a warrant.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and, for the most part, Anthony Kennedy, affirmed the state court's decision.

Sotomayor said many factors had to be considered in deciding whether a warrant was needed.

“Whether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances,” Sotomayor wrote.

Among the relevant factors, she said, are “the practical problems of obtaining a warrant within a time frame that still preserves the opportunity to obtain reliable evidence.”

She said technological developments made promptly obtaining a warrant possible in many circumstances.

You can read more about this  Here

No comments:

Post a Comment