Re: Fill er up.

They can't draw blood without a warrant, the force distinction is irrelevant and 
I don't know why the article mentions it.  Drawing blood is an invasive 
procedure and requires force, if nothing more than the force necessary for the 
needle to puncture the skin.




Mike F.  



________________________________
From: Karl Swenson <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, July 8, 2011 1:20:03 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Fill er up.

Since they could already compel a blood test, not sure this is a huge loss
of rights more than it is an expansion of rights already lost.

So did he pop out a cup on the side of the road or transport her to a secure
collection site?



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Mike Findlay
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:23 AM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: [DADL-OT] 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


-- 
(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
-- 
(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