Re: Fill er up.

taze her, shoot her dog, 
another day in the police state.
-L

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 8, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Mike Findlay <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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