The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Another interesting case is going to be the DWI case. Can a state jail you or take away your driver's license if you refuse a breath test without a warrant?

I'm amazed that hasn't been thoroughly tested yet. IIRC, people were talking about that when the first random road blocks went up in the 80s.

I don't know about jail, but it seems simple to take away the license. It's a privilege, not a right, so make one of the conditions that you have to submit to testing upon request.

 

[unofan]

Another interesting case is going to be the DWI case. Can a state jail you or take away your driver's license if you refuse a breath test without a warrant?

Taking away the license is not on the table, since that is an administrative action. It's only the jail time that's at issue.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Taking away the license is not on the table, since that is an administrative action. It's only the jail time that's at issue.

Maybe, maybe not. From SCotUSBlog:

The drivers counter that states can’t make a benefit like driving contingent on giving up a constitutional right.

So I think everything is on the table. Potentially.

 

[unofan]

Maybe, maybe not. From SCotUSBlog:



So I think everything is on the table. Potentially.

Issue: Whether, in the absence of a warrant, a state may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person’s blood.

Again, it's only the criminal aspect that's at issue, which is the jailtime. The implied consent relating to the administrative decision to take away your license is not at issue.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Issue: Whether, in the absence of a warrant, a state may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person’s blood.

Again, it's only the criminal aspect that's at issue, which is the jailtime. The implied consent relating to the administrative decision to take away your license is not at issue.

I guess I still read it differently. *shrug*


That aside, here's a good writeup on the arguments:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/a...usal-to-take-a-breathalyzer-test-in-jeopardy/

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Haven't been following the case: In the presence of what . . . reasonable suspicion?

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Haven't been following the case: In the presence of what . . . reasonable suspicion?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Issue: Whether, in the absence of a warrant, a state may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person’s blood.

Again, it's only the criminal aspect that's at issue, which is the jailtime. The implied consent relating to the administrative decision to take away your license is not at issue.

and it sounds like one of those cases that could really boil down to a very narrow technicality.

If I understand correctly, you need a warrant to collect a sample of the suspect's DNA, but if the suspect had a bloody nose left behind a blood-soaked handkerchief at the crime scene, you could test that blood without a warrant.

So it seems reasonable to me that you need a warrant to force a suspect to blow into a breathalyzer, but if you could collect the air the suspect breathes out in a plastic bag, could you then test it without a warrant?

Another thing that seems to me a very simple and reasonable solution, especially in this day and age: more police are carrying iPads (e.g., to look up license plate numbers on line to see if there are any issues); so just have a night court judge on call, and whenever you pull someone over, Skype the judge, show him the suspect, get the warrant right then and there in real time.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I don't quite understand why the Hobby Lobby case doesn't stand as applicable precedent for the Little Sisters of the Poor case....

Be that as it may, the Little Sisters of the Poor have accepted the compromise offered by SCOTUS: they won't object if the government offers their employees contraceptive coverage through a separate policy, which the government already does in Medicaid anyway.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/little-sisters-of-the-poor-say-yes-to-the-court-1461279815

Last week, I said “yes” to an unexpected solution that the Supreme Court proposed to the case involving our religious order. Following oral arguments last month, the justices took an unusual step: They asked if there were ways for the government to provide contraceptives and other services to our employees without involving our health plan and violating our conscience....

we said that we would. For example, the government or an insurance company could provide a supplemental plan that covers these services. Having a separate policy would not be unusual: Millions of people have different cards and coverage for vision, dental or prescription drugs. The government already offers stand-alone contraceptive policies to nearly three million women nationwide under Medicaid—often allowing them to sign up right at their doctor’s offices....

Some might be surprised that we do not object to this course. But we have always maintained that there is no reason to take over a religious group’s health plan when there are countless other ways for the government to achieve its goal. We have never asked the court to prevent the government or insurance companies from offering this coverage to women who want it. We asked simply that we be allowed to continue to serve the elderly poor without violating our faith. [emphasis added]

the original article contains a link providing evidence for the veracity of the bolded text.

 

[unofan]

I don't quite understand why the Hobby Lobby case doesn't stand as applicable precedent for the Little Sisters of the Poor case....

Be that as it may, the Little Sisters of the Poor have accepted the compromise offered by SCOTUS: they won't object if the government offers their employees contraceptive coverage through a separate policy, which the government already does in Medicaid anyway.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/little-sisters-of-the-poor-say-yes-to-the-court-1461279815



the original article contains a link providing evidence for the veracity of the bolded text.

Because the solution offered in Hobby Lobby is exactly what the religious groups are arguing against here.

And Medicaid is a program for low income people. Most people who hold jobs, aka the employees of the groups at issue here, do not qualify for Medicaid eligibility.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

and it sounds like one of those cases that could really boil down to a very narrow technicality.

If I understand correctly, you need a warrant to collect a sample of the suspect's DNA, but if the suspect had a bloody nose left behind a blood-soaked handkerchief at the crime scene, you could test that blood without a warrant.

So it seems reasonable to me that you need a warrant to force a suspect to blow into a breathalyzer, but if you could collect the air the suspect breathes out in a plastic bag, could you then test it without a warrant?

Another thing that seems to me a very simple and reasonable solution, especially in this day and age: more police are carrying iPads (e.g., to look up license plate numbers on line to see if there are any issues); so just have a night court judge on call, and whenever you pull someone over, Skype the judge, show him the suspect, get the warrant right then and there in real time.

It looks like you're missing the difference between pulling over a driver for suspicion of DUI/DWI and simply having roadside sobriety checks. If a man is pulled over by a patrol officer for suspicion of DWI, then he may be able to compel the driver to take a breathalyzer test. If the driver was caught up in a sobriety checkpoint, then there was no probable cause and it changes the situation entirely.

Also, with Skype, FaceTime, etc., the suspect hasn't been presented with a formal (written) notification or copy of the warrant. That may violate the suspect's due process rights, but since I'm not a lawyer...

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Most people who hold jobs, aka the employees of the groups at issue here, do not qualify for Medicaid eligibility.

So what? That's a diversion.

SCOTUS offered a compromise solution. Little Sisters accepted.

If it is so vital for the government that women absolutely must have access to contraception without having to pay for it directly themselves, then let the government also accept the compromise and provide it to them directly.

Given what each party said was important to them, that would satisfy both sides. We have resolution on one case without having to decide any constitutional issues more broadly.




Unless one side was not negotiating in good faith and had a covert agenda.....

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

If a man is pulled over by a patrol officer for suspicion of DWI, then he may be able to compel the driver to take a breathalyzer test. If the driver was caught up in a sobriety checkpoint, then there was no probable cause and it changes the situation entirely.

The underlying issue in the court case is whether a person who refuses to comply with a breathalyzer test can be automatically subject to criminal penalties merely because of the refusal. License suspension (an administrative, non-criminal penalty) for such refusal would still be okay.

If I understand correctly, right against self-incrimination would allow the refusal to occur without automatically triggering a criminal charge absent evidence, and right against "unreasonable" search would preclude a breathalyzer test (which might provide evidence) being mandatory to avoid criminal penalties absent a warrant first.

Also, with Skype, FaceTime, etc., the suspect hasn't been presented with a formal (written) notification or copy of the warrant. That may violate the suspect's due process rights, but since I'm not a lawyer...

are you always so hyper-literal? so the police have a fax machine / web printer too..... or they just show it to him on the screen and have him sign it electronically, which now apparently IS allowed under the US Electronic Signature Act.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Also, with Skype, FaceTime, etc., the suspect hasn't been presented with a formal (written) notification or copy of the warrant. That may violate the suspect's due process rights, but since I'm not a lawyer...

I think it was in that article I posted earlier, but there are plenty of states that have no issues getting a warrant within 5-15 minutes.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

are you always so hyper-literal?

Are laws ever written and arranged as bouquets of flowers? No, they are literal events, literally written words, and the words mean what they mean. If I'm ever in need, I want a lawyer who's going to look at the law with a literal and keen ability to parse it and understand its application to my situation. I don't want best guesses and a shrug of thinking it can possibly mean something if it's not already been decided by a challenge in court.

 

[burd]

Are laws ever written and arranged as bouquets of flowers? No, they are literal events, literally written words, and the words mean what they mean. If I'm ever in need, I want a lawyer who's going to look at the law with a literal and keen ability to parse it and understand its application to my situation. I don't want best guesses and a shrug of thinking it can possibly mean something if it's not already been decided by a challenge in court.

True. You cannot be prosecuted for a crime that is not codified, and being prosecuted under a vaguely drafted statute would probably violate your right to due process. We may be presumed to have knowledge of criminal statutes, but we are entitled to notice of what is considered criminal.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Are laws ever written and arranged as bouquets of flowers? No, they are literal events, literally written words, and the words mean what they mean. If I'm ever in need, I want a lawyer who's going to look at the law with a literal and keen ability to parse it and understand its application to my situation. I don't want best guesses and a shrug of thinking it can possibly mean something if it's not already been decided by a challenge in court.

It would seem SCOTUS disagrees with you as they have looking at "intent" rather than what the law actually says. Imagine your teachers in elementary and high school giving you a "A" for a poorly written paper (though they probably do now not wanting to hurt the snowflakes and incur the ire of the parents)?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

laws ... are literal events, literally written words, and the words mean what they mean.

That is an absolutely perfect distillation of the argument against a "living constitution" theory! Bravo!

 

[GrinCDXX]

That is an absolutely perfect distillation of the argument against a "living constitution" theory! Bravo!

I thought this post might be coming, but wasn't sure since it serves as a reminder of what a fraud you are.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

See if you can spot the legal error.