Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRat
Quote:
woah does that make you an intentional despot?? :shock:
No, just someone who realizes the limitations of the Constitution. This isn't exactly a big news flash. There are numerous court cases where it has been established that "implied consent" is valid and legal. It just occurs to me that ranting and raving about it is pointless. There have been plenty of court cases on this issue, mostly involving DUI stops and random police checkpoints, and none have been successful (had any case been successful, we would not have "implied consent" laws in all 50 states, which we do.) It's hard to make a claim that something violates the Constitution when there is a stack of case law saying you are wrong. Originally Posted by yeti
Quote:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:Originally Posted by DesertRat
the Government can require what it deems appropriate, without fear of violating the Constitution.
woah does that make you an intentional despot?? :shock:
Here DesertRat this one is just for you:
Georgia?s Implied Consent Law Struck Down
A new Georgia law that required any motorists involved in serious accidents to submit to drug testing or automatically lose their driver's license for a year has been struck down by the state Supreme Court.
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled Monday that the state's implied consent statue "authorizes a search and seizure without probable cause" and therefore violates the state and federal constitution.
Under the provision the court struck down, any motorist involved in a auto mishap in which serious injury or death occurred was presumed to have given prior consent to a chemical test to determine the presence or alcohol or other drugs. The flaw, the court said, is that the statute compels chemical testing regardless of whether there is any independent reason to believe they are impaired.
The ruling sent local prosecutors scrambling to determine how many current DUI cases may be affected. Law enforcement officials said the ruling would force them to return to the practice of asking motorists for consent to blood tests in cases where injury has occurred.
More: Alcohol-Related Impairment | More About Drunk Driving
Tuesday October 7, 2003 | comments (0)