Missouri v. McNeely

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

150px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_CourtThis case, recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, involves a Missouri state highway patrolman who stopped McNeely’s truck for speeding at 2:08 a.m. The officer noted signs of intoxication and ordered McNeely out of the vehicle and performed a field sobriety test. McNeely performed the tests poorly and was placed under arrest. McNeely refused to consent to a breathalyzer test and was driven to a local hospital where blood was drawn without consent and without a warrant. The results of the blood test showed that McNeely’s blood-alcohol ratio was over the legal limit.

McNeely moved to have the blood test results suppressed as a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and the trial court sustained the motion. The case was appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court (en banc) and the trial court’s decision was upheld. The Missouri Supreme Court held:

Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person was violated, and the trial court’s judgment sustaining Defendant’s motion to suppress is affirmed.

The question before the U.S. Supreme Court is: “Can blood be drawn based solely on an officer’s authority?”

Refusal to consent to a blood test can result in suspension of one’s driver’s license for one year. However, with the results of a blood test, a criminal conviction for drunk driving is almost assured. The body’s natural dissipation of alcohol makes obtaining a warrant a time-critical exercise if the officer wants to obtain the evidence.

The Missouri Supreme Court noted the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case of Schmerber v. California. In that case the Court ruled by a five-to-four vote that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment for police who lack a warrant to order the taking of a blood sample from an individual involved in an auto accident and who was suspected of being drunk at the time. In Schmerber the Court wrote: “Search warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings, and, absent an emergency, no less could be required where intrusions into the human body are concerned.” The Court also wrote that the Schmerber judgement was reached “only on the facts of the present record.”

While trying to determine a Supreme Court vote based on the Justices’ questions during oral argument is dicey, many Court watchers predict that the Court is not going to let police across the nation order blood samples — on their own authority. Justice Scalia said “once we say that you don’t need a warrant, you know, even if things improve, the game’s up, right?”

During oral argument, the Justices were concerned with what would constitute a reasonable amount of time to obtain a warrant for a blood test and that during this time the evidence is being lost. The State claims this loss of evidence was an exigent circumstance and doesn’t require a warrant. There was a discussion as to what would constitute an exigent circumstance in a DUI case.

H/T: Lyle Denniston, Charles P. Pierce, ACLU, Orin Kerr, John Wesley Hall.

60 thoughts on “Missouri v. McNeely

  1. I detest drunk drivers, they should be not be driving and we need to do all we can to keep them off the road. I also detest a government that can control our lives. If refusal to take the test results in a 1 year loss of license, I’m fine with that. If during that year you are caught driving (sober, drunk, not using a turn signal, doesn’t matter), you loose the car, a 10,000 fine, and 1 year in jail. Pretty harsh? Yep, so is killing people while drunk.

  2. Interesting question David! I wold not be surprised if the Roberts Court allows police the naked authority to order blood draws without a warrant. The Schmerber case was decided in favor of allowing the blood drawn and the only difference between the two cases seem to be the Schmerber case involved an accident and McNeely does not.

  3. rafflaw,

    You’re the lawyer, but I’ll be surprised if the court decides to allow the police to draw blood without a warrant.

    If I understand what Scalia said — ““once we say that you don’t need a warrant, you know, even if things improve, the game’s up, right?” — well, for once, I happen to agree with him.

    If it happens and it might, I suppose, then “the game’s up”, to be sure.

  4. 5/4….. With Sotomayor the swing vote……I think it will be treated as exigent circumstances and blood draws will be allowed…..

  5. Paul 1, January 12, 2013 at 9:25 am

    I detest drunk drivers, they should be not be driving and we need to do all we can to keep them off the road. I also detest a government that can control our lives. If refusal to take the test results in a 1 year loss of license, I’m fine with that. If during that year you are caught driving (sober, drunk, not using a turn signal, doesn’t matter), you loose the car, a 10,000 fine, and 1 year in jail. Pretty harsh? Yep, so is killing people while drunk.
    ===================================================
    If drivers who are over the legal alcohol limit are the third cause of deaths and accidents, first is cell-phone texting, and second is being tired, would you advocate for the first and second slots what you do for the third slot?

  6. Next they will have a test which reqauires a needle stuck all the way into the liver. Or they will want a quart of blood. Or they will want your dna because you look like the kid named Adam who just shot all those people in Newtown and they want to sterize you. Or they will want to give you a drug to make you tell the truth while in a coma. Or they will want to cut off the middle finger so that you cant use it when necessary.

    Take away some of the Supreme Court Justices sacred rights: 1) three months paid vacation July through September; 2) Free ScaliaCare, the medical care they get for life; 3) Right to wear a robe while at work so that they can play with themselves un-noticed (ScaliaFun); 4) Right to play god and violate the Sixth Commandment of Thou Shalt Not Kill.

    It will be 6-3 in favor of the pigs.

  7. Tough call but I have to go with raff and AY with the stipulation it will be a narrow ruling. Unless, of course, it guts the right which is not out of the question with this Court either. It’s not like they don’t have a history of disastrous stupidity.

  8. Oh I think we have quite enough warrant-less nonsense going on. FISA was reupped without a PEEP of debate. When is enough ENOUGH already?

  9. How does this fit into the equation:

    The safety recommendation specifically calls for the 50 states and the District of Columbia to ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task) for all drivers. The safety recommendation also urges use of the NHTSA model of high-visibility enforcement to support these bans and implementation of targeted communication campaigns to inform motorists of the new law and heightened enforcement.

    (Android Central).

    A DUI lawyer makes a startling statement:

    Many years ago, I was invited to give a lecture to a “think tank” of government, corporate and academic types. In the years since then that I have given versions of it to other groups, the legal and political situation has only grown worse.

    Perhaps the lecture itself might better explain why I consider MADD to be a continuing threat to our institutions and constitutional safeguards…..

    I hope to convince you in the next hour, some of you, that the greatest single threat to our freedoms, the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights, is not from Iraq or Iran. I don’t think it’s from North Korea. I don’t think it’s from the extremists of the Muslim world. The threat, as it has always been throughout history, is internal: It is from within. But I do not think it is from the American Communist party or extremists on the right. I hope to convince a few of you that the greatest single threat to our freedoms today comes from a group consisting largely of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD.

    (DUI Blog).

  10. I see this as an example of mitigated rights in certain circumstances, such as buying a ticket to an event, wherein certain rules that restrict your rights are printed on the back of the ticket. You, by obtaining a drivers license, give up certain rights for the privilege of driving under rules and laws prescribed by the legislature. Among those is the requirement to to drive sober and lawfully, with penalties and evidence rules given by the state to the police. Among these are taking of evidence on the spot without a warrant, with the proviso that if you refuse, certain penalties can be imposed, such as losing your license.
    I forsee the court allowing the continuation of blood tests as currently practiced under this circumstance.

  11. When they took McNeely’s blood, did the blood taker leave a squirt of rubbing alcohol on his arm as he inserted the needle and suck some up with the blood? If so, who was there to observe? The pig? Who seized the blood sample and tampered with it? The pig?

    Next they will require you to pull up to a roadstop and pee in a jar– every fifth car pulled over. Then it will be strip searches for pot. And cavity searches for pot. God knows he has a joint up his arse. No warrant needed in this country. America–The Pirate Territory– where cops and small town police forces are pirates of the Red Sea. Fly over and flush twice.

  12. Scalia will be searching the Original Constitution, and maybe the first ten amendments, to ascertain the Original Intent of the Framers. My gosh, there were not cars back then and no drunk horse riding laws. One cannot predict what the Original Intent of the Framers would be if they lived today– not according to Scalia. Of course, I would ask him what the mind of one of the Framers would be if he saw four women on the Court, one black, four jews and five Catholics. What no protestants? If we could only go back in time and ask a Framer.

    Thomas will be looking at his watch and asking no questions.

    Anthony Kennedy will be keeping his head straight ahead, fair and balanced.

    Ginsberg will be staring.

    Kagan will want to know if he was a bad drunk.

    Sotomayer will want to know if he was a good cop.

    Alito will want to know what Scalia thinks.

    Breyer will be asking about the demeanor of the driver.

    And the ninth Justice …. who is the ninth?

  13. Congress ought to pass a law that each judge have a needle stuck in his left arm and blood drawn each time they put on the robe and go out to hear cases. Another blood drawing from their arm when they go into Conference and argue with each other. Another blood drawing when they come back from their three month vacation paid for by the taxpayer. We need to know if they have been drinking, taking drugs, have low cholesterol, have bad dna that might make them think like a Commie. Hey if you can force every driver to have a needle stuck in his arm at the whim of any pig then why not do this for the sake of Justice? Hey, I was an electrician before I got my nurse license and this wont hurt. Ooooch.

  14. How many times has this blog focused on the abuse of probable cause by faked testimony of police?

    Remember the cavity search of two females on suspicion of smoking pot because the car they had borrowed “smelled like pot” a few days ago?

    What is to stop such abuse in these “I smelled alcohol” suspicions of DUI?

    The DUI Blog (Lawyer Taylor) has a take on this case that Nal has blogged about today.

    Two things have been left out of the discussion heretofore.

    First, the premise that evidence will be destroyed is not true.

    For those who have used experts in DUI cases to establish the blood alcohol content of drivers at the time of an accident or arrest, you know that they can calculate that amount retroactively even when the blood is drawn an hour or so after the event.

    Secondly, a lot of people do not know that the surge in DUI mania is a function of the efforts of one large church, the same one that got the 13th Amendment passed:

    “The temperance movement was the social concern which most broadly captured the interest and enthusiasm of the Methodist Church. The movement was strongly tied to John Wesley’s theology and social principles. Wesley’s abhorrence of alcohol use was taken up by American Methodists, many of whom were active and prominent leaders within the movement … The Methodist stance against drinking was strongly stated in the Book of Discipline. Initially, the issue taken was limited to distilled liquors, but quickly, teetotalism became the norm and Methodists were commonly known to abstain from all alcoholic beverages … Due to the temperate stance of the church, the practice of Eucharist was altered — to this day, Methodist churches most commonly use grape juice symbolically during Communion rather than wine. The Methodist church distinguished itself from many other denominations in their beliefs about state control of alcohol. Where many other denominations, including Roman Catholics, Protestant Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Unitarians, believed that the ill-effects of liquor should be controlled by self-discipline and individual restraint, Methodists believed that it was the duty of the government to enforce restrictions on the use of alcohol. In 1904, the Board of Temperance was created by the General Conference to help push the Temperance agenda … To this day, the Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Missions holds property across on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, which was built using funds provided by laypeople. Women of the church were responsible for 70% of the $650,000 it cost to construct the building in 1922. The building was intended to serve as the Methodist Church’s social reform presence of the Hill. The Board of Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals was especially prominent within the building.

    “Bob [Senator Dole who did federal DUI legislation] was raised in that kind of environment where everything rotates and revolves around the activities of the church, the rhythms of the [Methodist] church, the rituals of the church … “At this point in American history, in American culture, in a small town, in the Midwest, everything revolves around the church. Nothing takes place that is not in some way headquartered and centered in that church. A pastor is a high prestige position, high esteem, in a small town. So Bob Dole grew up in an environment where everything is ordered and organized by the rituals and the rhythms of that church. And he learned the small town values of a, of a church that is this white clap or steeple church that is kind of a, almost a cliche, but everything it stands for has an ordering, organizing, a centering of one’s life and that’s where, that’s where religion was centered and that’s where you centered your faith, through the rhythms and rituals of that church.”

    (Church Chat). That church is not worried about the first and second causes of highway deaths and accidents, nor with suicides, the number one cause of injury death, no, they focus only on the lesser causes.

    Demon rum is their target.

    This is political religious activism by tax exempt organizations once again.

  15. “The Schmerber case was decided in favor of allowing the blood drawn and the only difference between the two cases seem to be the Schmerber case involved an accident and McNeely does not.”

    There’s actually another difference between the cases that was the subject of many questions at oral argument. Specifically, there has been significant changes in technology and communications since Schmerber, so that, as a practical matter, getting a warrant is not nearly as time consuming as it was when Schmerber was decided. So, while exigent circumstances might have justified Schmerber, query whether those same circumstances are present today. In other words, how difficult is it today for cops to get a warrant for the defendant’s blood and would it really cause the loss of the evidence if they had to do so?

  16. “I hope to convince a few of you that the greatest single threat to our freedoms today comes from a group consisting largely of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD.”

    Hmmm, Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, immunity for torture and spying, etc. or harsher penalties for drunk drivers who kill thousands annually? Color me unconvinced.

  17. Well, some commenters above want the roads safe at any price. So, lets outlaw prescription drugs and doctors who prescribe drugs and pharmacists. Close every bar, liquor store and alcohol sales outlets. Get rid of the Moon so as to get rid of moonshine. Cordone off the Appalacian Mts and the Ozarks to keep the moonshiners in. Outlaw texting devices, cell phones, and loud children in cars. Require rubber bumpers front and back on every car. No driving at night. No speed higher than forty. No left turns. No U turns. No backing up. No person with bad eyesight or hearing can drive. No person under 25 or older than fifty can drive. Keep preachers and teahcers off the road. Stick a needle in the arm of every person who drives, before they get in the car, periodically and when they get out. No drive in movies theatres. Close the border with Mexico and New York from the rest of the country while you’re at it. New brakes on cars every six months. Drivers ed classes for all. Drivers ed classes for drivers ed teachers.

  18. anonymously posted 1, January 12, 2013 at 11:17 am

    OT. Sorry.

    Hacker, Activist Aaron Swartz Commits Suicide
    ========================================
    Yeah, like Alan Turing eh? What is the evidence?

    ==========

    Knowing what I know, I have my doubts. Yep, Turing, et al.

  19. Dredd 1, January 12, 2013 at 11:38 am

    anonymously posted 1, January 12, 2013 at 11:17 am

    OT. Sorry.

    Hacker, Activist Aaron Swartz Commits Suicide
    ========================================
    Yeah, like Alan Turing eh? What is the evidence?

    ==========

    Dredd,

    Yep. Knowing what I know, I have my doubts. Yep, Turing, et al.

  20. Enter the time you stopped the driver. If he refuses blood testing, get a warrant, but have the cop sign an affidavit giving exact details. Pass a law, based on good data about how fast alcohol levels drop in the blood for a person of that size over time, showing what are values “over legal limits” for the amount of time passed, up to an hour, two hours, whatever the medical research shows to be the time that the alcohol reaches zero. You can have one magistrate on duty for a large area for warrants now that you have electronic means of verifying the signatures needed. This is doable with our technology nowadays. Just don’t decide to throw out the Fourth Amendment with the bathwater. Tough cases make bad law, but good technology makes fewer excuses necessary.

  21. BarkinDog 1, January 12, 2013 at 11:52 am

    Well, some commenters above want the roads safe at any price. So, lets outlaw prescription drugs and doctors who prescribe drugs and pharmacists. Close every bar, liquor store and alcohol sales outlets. Get rid of the Moon so as to get rid of moonshine. Cordone off the Appalacian Mts and the Ozarks to keep the moonshiners in. Outlaw texting devices, cell phones, and loud children in cars. Require rubber bumpers front and back on every car. No driving at night. No speed higher than forty. No left turns. No U turns. No backing up. No person with bad eyesight or hearing can drive. No person under 25 or older than fifty can drive. Keep preachers and teahcers off the road. Stick a needle in the arm of every person who drives, before they get in the car, periodically and when they get out. No drive in movies theatres. Close the border with Mexico and New York from the rest of the country while you’re at it. New brakes on cars every six months. Drivers ed classes for all. Drivers ed classes for drivers ed teachers.
    ======================================
    Don’t forget suicide, the number one cause of injury death in the U.S.

    Tobacco smoking causes 400,000 deaths a year in the US, pollution causes upwards of 5,000,000 deaths per year globally.

    Yet, Oil-Qaeda is given billions of taxpayer dollars to help them do more to us.

    Religion inspired law is the worst when it gets blood thirsty.

  22. Gene,
    I think you are right that it will be a narrow decision. I hope I am wrong with my thought that the Supremes will find in favor of allowing warrantless blood draws, but I do not trust the Roberts court.

  23. I agree no warrant, no draw….. But this is a court full of bush and Obama appointees…. We will see where that gets us….

  24. Dredd 1, January 12, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    Double posting there ap … I suspect DUI (Double posting Under the Influence) … stick out your arm … gonna go blood deep on ya … ;)

    ======
    :-) Yep, Dredd, under the influence all right… the influence of too much coffee, to be sure. And hey, draw away… because I have nothing to fear… (sarcasm)

    I posted initially, without giving you credit. So I credited you and reposted, without explanation, since I’m feeling lazy today. But here’s my arm anyway…

  25. AY,

    They’ll draw the line on this one, pun intended, in spite of the court’s composition, IMHO. (Feel free to say, “I told you so.”)

  26. there is the larger question about accidents and blood alcohol level. what is the evidence of the higher level of accidents among drivers at various blood levels?

  27. I would like to believe that our 4th amendment right would be protected, but I have to agree with rafflaw on this one. Why would a Court which has steadfastly decimated our rights, especially the 4th amendment, suddenly relent and do the right thing? I don’t believe that the concept of ‘the right thing’ is anything that the majority on the Court has even a passing familiarity with.

  28. Bron,

    Interesting link. I would add that depression and suicidal ideation do not necessarily lead to suicide. Sometimes they do, but not always.

    Aaron Swartz reportedly hung himself. Maybe in his case it was government-assisted suicide, in the sense that the DOJ was rather relentless in its pursuit, as well as its insistence to make the “felon” label stick.

    From the NY Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/technology/aaron-swartz-internet-activist-dies-at-26.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp

    Mr. Swartz returned the hard drives with 4.8 million documents, and JSTOR declined to pursue the case. But United States attorney Carmen M. Ortiz pressed on, saying that “Stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars.”

    Ms. Ortiz might have added that there are important exceptions to that “rule.” During the S&L crisis, there were thousands of indictments and roughly 1000 people went to jail. Now, we go after people like Aaron Swartz, and let Wall Street types and corrupt bankers skate.

  29. anonymously posted 1, January 12, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    Bron,

    Interesting link. I would add that depression and suicidal ideation do not necessarily lead to suicide. Sometimes they do, but not always.

    Aaron Swartz reportedly hung himself. Maybe in his case it was government-assisted suicide, in the sense that the DOJ was rather relentless in its pursuit, as well as its insistence to make the “felon” label stick.
    ===============================================
    And don’t forget dear AP that “these innertubes” are the only place to find true American journalism … i.e. citizen journalism.

    There are many reasons, in their minds, to get rid of the internet, and he was a light in that darkness.

    I do not think he committed suicide.

  30. Democrats killing democrats…. That’s a new one….. Fostering another government assisted suicide…. Ken Lay anyone?

  31. ap:

    I dont doubt that government persecution contributed to his death, I just dont think they put the rope around his neck and kicked the chair out from under him.

    You cannot win a pissing contest with a skunk. Especially one with unlimited ammunition.

  32. dredd:

    yep, free speech is very important. The internet is the newspaper of the founders day just as the M-16 is the musket of our day.

    I find it interesting that government wants to control both just as the British did.

  33. “I just dont think they put the rope around his neck and kicked the chair out from under him.” -Bron

    If they did, we’ll never know.

    ====

    Dredd wrote:

    “And don’t forget dear AP that “these innertubes” are the only place to find true American journalism … i.e. citizen journalism.

    There are many reasons, in their minds, to get rid of the internet, and he was a light in that darkness.”

    I know and agree Dredd — dear Dredd :-)…

    With regard to your last point, as I told Bron, if he was helped along, we’ll likely never know. Should we continue to wonder? Without a doubt. Without a doubt.

    Others may have been or were likely “assisted.” Gary Webb comes to mind.

  34. I thought I would provide some additional background on some of the mechanics and practical considerations on this case.

    I use WA statutory and case law as an example:

    1) Breath Sampling for Alcohol is mandatory under implied consent laws when suspect is arrested for DUI / Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle while Intoxicated / Operation of a Commercial Vehicle after having consumed alcohol / or Being under Twenty One Years in Age and Driving after Having Consumed Alcohol. Defendant may refuse test but Department of Licensing will revoke Driver License for One Year and refusal can be used as evidence in court.

    2) The defendant has the right to a blood test performed at his own expense.

    3) If the defendant is physically (due to medical condition other than unconsciousness) unable to perform a breath sampling, implied consident for blood takes place and the defendant has a right to refuse the test.

    4) If the defendant was under arrest for DUI any of the following events have happened, the officer may order a mandatory blood test without the consent of the defendant.
    Driver is Unconscious
    Driver is likely to suffer death
    Driver chanrged with Vehiclular Homicide or Vehicular Assault
    Driver involved in accident resulting in serious bodily injury

    5) Nothing in the law precludes an officer from obtaining a search warrant for either of the two tests.

    The argument with regard to spoilage of the evidence is that the body metabolizes the alcohol / intoxicants and that the evidence will be destroyed with passing time. (I will make some counterclaims to this at the end)

    Practical Considerations:

    It is a frequent event that defendants of DUI offenses will refuse to provide a breath sample. Roughly guessing with my experience it was about 20% of defendants. Typically those who were driving with suspended licenses and prior DUI convictions were most likely to refuse.

    99% of officers when this happens just note the refusal in the report and rely on field sobriety tests, observations of the defendant and observations of the driving. A few officers I have known went through the trouble to obtain search warrants for blood. Most do not. The reason is most DUIs are made after 8 PM and most officers do not want to bother a judge late at night to perform a telephonic search warrant. This typically will take over an hour or so to just get the paperwork going, and probably another hour to go to the hospital and make the draw. Most officers don’t have the time or the inclination to do this even though the probable cause to request a warrant is amost always convincing to the judge.

    In the case of Section 4) it is almost a certainty that an experienced officer with Felony DUI experience is going to go through the extra steps to obtain the blood sample or otherwise hand it off to another officer to perform this. The main practical reason is the lack of requirement to obtain a search warrant. I am convinced had a search warrant been required to obtain an immediate blood draw, probably only a third of officers would go through the trouble to do this. The legislature probably recognized this when the law was drafted.

    Now for the information about the degredation of the evidence as considered an exigent circumstance through the body’s metabolism of the intoxicant. It is fairly well established, based upon gender, weight, level of intoxication that alcohol can be shown to be metabolized at a defined rate. For example, if a person had last consumed a drink 15 minutes prior to driving, was arrested 15 minutes after starting to drive, refused the test and was forced under search warrant one and a half hours afterward to a blood test that resulted in a BAC level of .200. Expert Testimony would be conclusive that a person was certainly over a .08 at the time of driving due to the probability of the person being over that at the time of driving as the rate of metabolism as being .015 BAC per hour (which would mean the driver could be at .230 at time of driving) or their alcohol level could not have suddenly gone to a .200 that quickly from sobriety 15 minutes prior to have driving.

    My practice was that I almost never went for a search warrant on a run of the mill DUI with a refusal to blow. But if 4) was performed I excercised state authority to a mandatory blood draw. But, if a search warrant later through court decision required a search warrant for a blood draw, the seriousness of 4) would be such that I would elect to obtain the search warrant anyway. If the defendant was hospitalized and the blood draw would be done for medical purposes I wouldn’t wake up a judge then because I could always get a search warrant for the medical records at a later time. (which is usually what I did anyway) if the defendant was not injured then the immediate search warrant for blood would be requested.

    Generally when in doubt, get a warrant. If you have probable cause to support the warrant and the other requisite circumstances the judge is almost always going to grant it if the PC and the authority is golden. It’s really just a matter of practicality and resolve on the part of the officer as to whether it is obtained when it could be asked for. But we need to consider that always obtaining a search warrant for all searches just is not practical, namely search of a person incident to lawful arrest (you cannot reasonably expect a search warrant to frisk a person’s pockets when they are being taken to jail. If so we would have to have two orders of magnitude more judges if all officers had to request a search warrant for this) That is the balance the courts have struggled with for decades.

  35. “N —- guy dont let the sun go down on you in Phelps County, Missoura. We will pull you over and lock you up, drive you twenty miles to the local hospital and stab you with a needle and steal your blood. We will get a little alcohol reading in there along the way cause Joebub who works there is our Joebub and you and your kind will get the message. Tank you Scalia, we know where you are coming from and you know where we are from.”

    The above was over heard by me in a gas station — some Sheriff yakking to Joebub out in Phelps County, Missoura–this afternoon as I was driving through.

  36. Ya, if they run their mouths off at ya, run em to the hospital and have em stick needles in their arms. That will show em.

  37. Dont let the sun go down on you in this county. We have the power to pull you over, take you to a clinic, and have some lame hillbilly stick a needle in your arm and steal your blood. That is the result of one Antonin Scalia, one who knows the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. And while the Framers may not have intended that Italians sit on the same seats that they created for the lilly white protestant English ethnic group, the Framers were ok with sundown towns.

  38. Here is what I would argue to the Supreme Court if I was the assistant attorney general from Missoura:

    [to music]” We’re Redneck, Rednecks, …
    We dont know our arse from a hole in the ground,..
    We’re Redneck, Rednecks, ..
    We are keeping the negros down…

    –Jerry Jeff Walker, singing about Phelps County, Missoura

  39. Wasnt it Rhenquest who was using prescription drugs and looked drugged out in court all the time? Cant we have needles and blood tests for those who decide what the Framers meant when they passed our Constitution?

    How does one spull WrenQuest?

  40. The author did not get the citation right. It is Missoura with an a at the end. Mizzou if you refer to the school of higher lernin.

  41. Invasion of the Body Searchers: The Loss of Bodily Integrity in an Emerging Police State

    By John W. Whitehead
    January 14, 2013

    https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/invasion_of_the_body_searchers_the_loss_of_bodily_integrity_in_an_emer

    “No matter which way the Supreme Court rules in Missouri v. McNeely, it will do little to rein in this runaway police state of ours. Indeed, as we have seen repeatedly, by the time a case arrives before the U.S. Supreme Court, it’s almost too late for any real change to take place, especially when it’s a matter of government abuse. More often than not, during the course of however many years it takes for a case to make its way through the courts, the particular violations being challenged have already been accepted by the citizenry as part of the government’s modus operandi.

    Such was the case with Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, which attempted to challenge the practice of forcible strip searches by government officials, namely jail wardens. Albert Florence, an African-American man in his mid-thirties, was on his way to Sunday dinner in 2005 when his then-pregnant wife, who was driving, was pulled over by a New Jersey State Police trooper. Asked to show his ID, Florence soon found himself handcuffed, erroneously arrested for failing to pay a traffic fine, and forced to submit to two egregious strip and visual body-cavity searches at two different county jails. After spending six days in jail, Florence was finally able to prove his innocence. Outraged, Florence sued the jail officials who had needlessly degraded his bodily integrity.

    It took seven years for Florence’s case to make it to the Supreme Court, and a year later, in April 2012, the Court handed down a 5-4 ruling which struck a blow to any long-standing protections against blanket strip searches, declaring that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying a weapon or contraband.

    However, all the while Florence was making its way through the courts, law enforcement officials were playing fast and loose with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on searches and seizures, especially as it relates to violations of bodily integrity and roadside strip searches. Examples of minor infractions which have resulted in strip searches include: individuals arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell, making an improper left turn, engaging in an antiwar demonstration (the individual searched was a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years). Police have also carried out strip searches for passing a bad check, dog leash violations, filing a false police report, failing to produce a driver’s license after making an illegal left turn, having outstanding parking tickets, and public intoxication. A failure to pay child support could also result in a strip search.

    This brings us to the present moment where we find ourselves hapless, helpless passengers in a runaway car hurtling down the road toward a police state, and the only hope of salvation rests with the Supreme Court, which is little hope at all when you consider that the Court has, in recent years alone, given a green light to all manner of police abuses, including the tasering of a pregnant woman for failing to sign a speeding ticket.

    It must be remembered that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect the citizenry from being subjected to “unreasonable searches and seizures” by government agents. While the literal purpose of the amendment is to protect our property and our bodies from unwarranted government intrusion, the moral intention behind it is to protect our human dignity. Unfortunately, the rights supposedly guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment have been steadily eroded over the past few decades. Court rulings justifying invasive strip searches as well as Americans’ continued deference to the dictates of achieving total security have left us literally stranded on the side of the road, grasping for dignity.”

  42. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/court-rules-warrants-are-needed-to-draw-blood-in-drunken-driving-cases.html?hp

    http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victory-supreme-court-finds-drunk-driving-laws-can-be-strictly-enforced

    04/17/2013

    VICTORY! Supreme Court Finds Drunk-Driving Laws Can Be Strictly Enforced without Abandoning Constitutional Rights

    By Steve Shapiro, ACLU at 11:52am

    The ACLU welcomes today’s Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor upheld the 4th Amendment’s privacy protections by rejecting the proposition that states may routinely compel drivers to submit to a blood test in drunk-driving cases without consent and without a warrant.

    We know from experience that drunk-driving laws can be strictly enforced without abandoning constitutional rights. Today’s decision appropriately recognizes what half the states have already demonstrated – that maintaining highway safety does not require sacrificing personal privacy.

  43. Press Release:

    http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/supreme-court-rules-missouri-v-mcneely-states-cannot-routinely-compel-blood

    Supreme Court Rules in Missouri v. McNeely That States Cannot Routinely Compel Blood Tests in DUI Cases Without Consent and Without a Warrant

    April 17, 2013

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

    NEW YORK – The ACLU welcomes today’s Supreme Court decision rejecting the proposition that states may routinely compel drivers to submit to a blood test in drunk-driving cases without consent and without a warrant.

    The following quote is from Steven R. Shapiro, ACLU national legal director, who represented Tyler McNeely before the Supreme Court:

    We know from experience that drunk-driving laws can be strictly enforced without abandoning constitutional rights. Today’s decision appropriately recognizes what half the states have already demonstrated – that maintaining highway safety does not require sacrificing personal privacy.

Comments are closed.