The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Missouri case that challenges that state’s no refusal law, which applies mandatory sanctions to drivers suspected of driving drunk who refuse to test. In Missouri vs. McNeely, prosecutors in the state have appealed a lower court ruling that found forced blood draws to be in violation of the 4th Amendment as an “unreasonable search.”
In many states, No Refusal, also known as implied consent laws, are in place to prevent suspected drunk drivers from simply refusing a breath, blood, or urine test. The laws apply mandatory penalties, usually license suspension, for refusing to be tested. Some also allow jurors to consider a refusal to test as an admission of guilt.
Missouri prosecutors are appealing that state’s high court ruling. At issue is the timing required to obtain a search warrant compelling the testing, which allows suspects time to sober up, potentially below .08 BAC, the legal limit in all 50 states, or below a level that would engage higher-level charges for “Super drunk drivers,” usually .15 BAC. On average, people metabolize alcohol at a fairly consistent rate, which is one average drink (or 0.5 ounces of alcohol) per hour.
The American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that a search warrant, signed by a magistrate, should be required before compelling a suspect to have a blood test.
The No Refusal laws remain controversial for reasons other than the issues raised in Missouri vs. McNeely. In states where license suspension is the only penalty, test refusals soar. Texas reports put the refusal rate as high as 50% for suspected drunk drivers refuse testing, and that number jumps to over 70% for repeat offenders. According to MADD, 50-70% of drivers with a suspended license continue to drive during suspension.
Some jurisdictions that don’t have state No Refusal laws, such as Texas, instead launch No Refusal campaigns during holidays known for extreme rates of drunk driving. According to a December 2011 article in the Wall Street Journal about the Texas campaign, prosecutors estimate they can win 90% of drunk-driving cases with blood evidence.
Trending in the opposite direction, Kansas recently passed a new implied consent law that applies mandatory jail time for test refusal if you’re a repeat offender. Kansas previously reported that 30% of repeat DUI offenders in the state refuse testing.
What do you think? Do No Refusal laws violate the 4th Amendment? Can the body’s rapid metabolism of alcohol, the core issue for law enforcement and prosecutors, justify compelling suspects to have blood draws?
This is an egregious affront to civil liberties. We inch towards a police state with tactics like this blessed by the aegis of elected and appointed officials and judges who believe know better than us. I cannot believe that people are not upset by the potential for a police officer holding you down and forcibly drawing your blood. What’s next?
What ever happened to the constitution? This MADD bunch has gone way to far! This BLOOD LAW is a clear violation of our 4th (unreasonable search) the fifth (self incrimination) amendment rights. Not to mention PART ONE of our meranda rights (right to remain silent) The blood will speak in court! What kind of judge would up hold such a travesty, communist is my guess.
“The constitution is here to protect us from people with good intentions”- George Washington
I agree, my friend. In fact, we have a motion hearing in Kansas Wednesday. Then we are appealing to the appellate court. Apparently there is a dui exception now. With implied consent laws, that is akin to saying when you got state certified to work in a daycare, you implicitly agreed to wave your right to remain silent or retain an attorney if you are accused of killing a child. NONSENSE.
Supreme Court, I have a right to not incriminate myself, period. There are no exceptions to my rights when you say so! Don’t repeat the stupidity of your Hobby Lobby hysteria and do your job by interpreting plain facts when it comes to the Constitution. I have the right to NOT incriminate myself of ANY crime. That is fact. Learn it!
I will probably lose because we are indeed headed for a police state, and the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution to equal the powers between government and a person are quickly disappearing.