SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submission Preview
SCOTUS: Get a warrant for a Blood Alcohol test.
Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that police need to get a warrant before forcing "drunk" drivers to take a blood test. The ruling Reported by the AP [ap.org] let stand breath tests.
You might still loose your license:
While drivers in all 50 states can have their licenses revoked for refusing drunken driving tests, the high court's ruling affects laws in 11 states that go farther in imposing criminal penalties for such refusals.
This hardly represents an impediment to police. Getting a warrant these days is pretty easy. Call the on-call Judge of the day, receive a emailed PDF "electronic" warrant in two minutes. The hard copy arrives in the mail in 2 days.
But at least the police will have to get a warrant to take (and keep) your DNA from a blood sample.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said breath tests do not implicate "significant privacy concerns." Unlike blood tests, breathing into a breathalyzer doesn't pierce the skin or leave a biological sample in the government's possession, he said.
This mostly affects drivers in states that have criminalized a driver's refusal to take alcohol blood or breath tests: Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia and of course Minnesota where this case originated.
