Fill er up.

Cop:  I think you are driving drunk.
Driver: No, I'm not, give me a breathalyzer
Cop: No we don't like those anymore, pee in this cup.
Driver:  What?  You can't make me pee in a cup.
Cop:  Off to jail with you buddy and kiss your license goodbye.


Brave new world we got ourselves.

Mike F.  



----- Forwarded Message ----
From: TheNewspaper <sharedarticle-Tdrh2E+Ad1PH3Z/[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, July 8, 2011 12:17:19 PM
Subject: Updates from TheNewspaper.com

TheNewspaper  
Updates from TheNewspaper.com 
    
________________________________
 
Minnesota: Appeals Court Expands DUI Implied Consent Reach 
Posted: 08 Jul 2011 01:59 AM PDT
Anyone accused by a police officer in Minnesota of driving under the influence 
of alcohol (DUI) can be compelled to produce a urine sample without a warrant, 
according to a June 27 decision by the state court of appeals. A three-judge 
panel weighed the case of Kim Marie Ellingson who had been stopped for speeding 
after midnight on May 3, 2009. The officer later arrested her for DUI.

Just days before, the state supreme court handed down its decision in the case 
of Minnesota v. Underdahl forcing disclosure of the source code that governs the 
operation of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN breath testing machine. The revelation 
allowed defense attorneys to uncover flaws in the device's operation. 
Prosecutors put thousands of cases on hold. Most jurisdictions switched to blood 
or urine testing to avoid the breath machine's problem.

Precedent already allowed police to take blood or breath without a warrant, 
although physical force could not be used without a judge's prior approval (view 
decision). No clear directive existed for warrantless urine collection. 
Nonetheless, a police officer insisted Ellingson provide such a sample under the 
implied consent statute. At trial, Ellingson insisted the police should have 
first obtained a warrant, as required by the Fourth Amendment.

"One exception to the warrant requirement is the existence of exigent 
circumstances," Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski wrote for the three-judge panel. 
"Exigency can be created by a single factor, in which case consideration of the 
totality of the circumstances is unnecessary."

To get this result, the prosecution's expert witness claimed waiting just 
fifteen minutes could cause a blood alcohol reading in the bladder to decrease 
by 0.002 -- enough to change a .081 conviction into a .079 acquittal.

"Appellant is correct that the forensic scientist testified that alcohol in the 
bladder is not destroyed by the body's natural processes in the same way as 
alcohol in the blood is destroyed," Kalitowski wrote. "But the record supports 
the district court's finding that the body's natural processes cause the alcohol 
concentration of urine to change rapidly."

Under this reasoning, the court affirmed Ellingson's conviction. A copy of the 
ruling is available in a 100K PDF file at the source link below. Source 

    
You are subscribed to email updates from TheNewspaper 
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered 
by Google 

Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 
-- 
(DEPRECATED) dadl-ot mailing list -- please use new Google Group for new discussions!
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot