SCOTUS Says Warrant Needed For Blood Test

[The Shadow]

Obviously the justices on the Supreme Court have no clue what dealing with a deuce entails. I wonder how 13353 will square with this ruling.

SCOTUS

[kermit315]

yeah, I wonder how it is going to affect implied consent laws across the country.

[IA300]

Not a very bright decision, seems more like a 9th circuit ruling. I expect more out of SCOTUS...

[tyrist]

Permanent ban from driving in the state for refusal maybe?

Felony DUI is going to be almost impossible now if the suspect is hospitalized.

[SVT-40]

Telephonic search warrant....

It would be simple for each officer to have a "boiler plate" warrant affidavit including his training and experience ready to go on his lap top. Then just insert the information related to the specific DUI arrest and call the on call judge. Judge approves the "search" and the needle goes in.

I've obtained telephonic search warrants for narcotics. Not a real big deal.

Once the practice related to DUI warrants becomes routine I would imagine it would only delay the process less than an hour.

[Armed24-7]

Obviously the justices on the Supreme Court have no clue what dealing with a deuce entails. I wonder how 13353 will square with this ruling.

SCOTUS

I believe it pertained to forced blood test when the suspect refuses.

[NuGunner]

To quote a coworker "this is bulls**t!"

[RedVines]

I don't think this is as damaging as it seems.

Apparently in MO a search warrant is REQUIRED for forced blood draws (if i'm wrong on this someone please correct me) so the process of getting a search warrant in DUIs is pretty streamlined. Therefore, it would probably wouldn't fly for the State to argue that getting a warrant would be impractical for the officer. The state didn't make any other additional argument to support exigency but just argued that BAC evidence is per se exigency.

In my county our policy allows for forced blood draw and we have no policy and procedures in place to obtain a warrant for a forced blood draw in a timely manner. The hypothetical process of obtaining a warrant prior to a forced blood draw would take so long you would definitely risk losing the BAC evidence.

Therefore I would venture to say that the impracticality of obtaining a warrant in my jurisdiction coupled with the dissipating nature of BAC would qualify under the exigency exception under the totality of my hypothetical circumstances. The SC recognizes this reality as it states in the opinion "exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless blood sample may arise in the regular course of law en*forcement due to delays from the warrant application process."

Of course, i can't speak for other CA officers, but in my jurisdiction this is my reality, so I don't see this court ruling really effecting me much.

[Ron-Solo]

With my old department, we only did a forced blood draw on felony DUI cases, and it was very rare. LA County has a 24 hour DA command post and a judge on call. Getting a telephonic warrant doesn't take long. On a standard DUI, it isn't worth the effort.

I had a 100% conviction rate on DUI refusals.

[Armed24-7]

With my old department, we only did a forced blood draw on felony DUI cases, and it was very rare. LA County has a 24 hour DA command post and a judge on call. Getting a telephonic warrant doesn't take long. On a standard DUI, it isn't worth the effort.

I had a 100% conviction rate on DUI refusals.

I made many DUI arrests. I had more than a handful of refusals, a few of which were felony DUI's. I could never get a watch commander to buy off on a forced blood draw. So they must be extremely rare...LOL

[Falconis]

Unfortunately the only ones I remember was where a death was involved.

[dcg92300]

My agency will force a blood draw with a supervisor present, it never has been a problem. The requiring of a search warrant will not deter us from doing it. It will be a minor inconvenience that we have as today streamlined with the on call judges.
As a 20 year motor officer I have little sympathy for dui. A few years ago my son was hit head on by one in Murrieta at approximately 50 m.p.h. all that saved him was he was driving a full size lifted truck. The other driver was permantly injured his passenger killed.

[hitman13]

In AZ with my agency:

Consent to a blood draw = we draw.
Refuse submittal = telephonic SW & forced draw. Takes about 15 mins, if that.

[Unit74]

I would think the states will counter with a notification to all drivers that a refusal will be tantamount to confession and a min. revocation of a license in excess of what the general suspension would be for the DUI. As a result, it is in their best driving interest to swallow the DUI vs. refusal.


Or in other words, make a refusals punishment more substantial than the DUI conviction itself. Make the arrest less complicated and the court system more expedient.

[Ninety]

I would think the states will counter with a notification to all drivers that a refusal will be tantamount to confession and a min. revocation of a license in excess of what the general suspension would be for the DUI. As a result, it is in their best driving interest to swallow the DUI vs. refusal.


Or in other words, make a refusals punishment more substantial than the DUI conviction itself. Make the arrest less complicated and the court system more expedient.

yea b/c that makes a whole lot of sense... refusal = guilty? So now your exercising of the 4th and 5th make a confession?

Aren't you already required to submit to any testing requested by an officer of the peace? Under penalty of 1yr suspension of license?

I can't find the dupe of this thread.. it wasn't posted in the LEO forum either .. I think the biggest problem is going to be uniformed departments.. who do forced blood draws and then it comes back and gets dismissed in court...

and to add.. I think this is a good decision by the courts... Your home requires more then PC to search.. why wouldn't your body..?