Courthouse News
A provision allowing for an unconscious driver to have their blood drawn and tested was declared unconstitutional by a Wisconsin appeals court Thursday, marking a consequential turn in the ongoing debate on implied consent laws.
A three-judge panel of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ District IV in Madison concluded in a 43-page decision that “the incapacitated driver provision is unconstitutional because the implied consent that incapacitated drivers are deemed to have given and presumed not to have withdrawn does not satisfy any exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” More
This is why i’m not a cop.
Punch him in the nose while he is unconscious and collect the blood sample from the steering wheel and note that you found him that way.
…must have been leaving the scene of an unreported fight.
Can be fixed it by making it an irrevocable express signed consent when licenses are got or renewed.
I understand the ‘implied consent’ is pretty weak, vis a vis the Fourth Amendment, but it will probably just lead to anyone that gets into an accident that’s shitfaced will just feint being passed out to avoid a blood test
(jeez, I mangled that sentence, didn’t I?)
Lotsa muffukers now be playin’ ‘possum, an’ shit.
And now the guy who really needs a roadside blood test is going to die on the roadside.
^^^ he said it better ^^^
lol
I remember in the 80s as a teenager Mother’s Against Drunk Drivers and impaired driving wasn’t given a pass. If you are passed out you either have a medical condition or an overdose of a legal or non legal substance or mix situation. Trump needs to start going to police departments, promoting law and order, pointing out the insanity that is occurring. We are at the point people won’t feel safe leaving the house for a myriad of reasons. I left CO and I never felt safe on the roads after even 5 p.m. knowing drivers were stoned and drunk. But Live PD pretty much showed even TX has most drivers impaired after dark.
@Erik:
What the court decided was that a roadside blood test cannot be used as evidence of impairment/intoxication. EMTs can still do whatever EMTs can already do to evaluate and stabilize a patient. Enforcers do not test blood for medical reasons, only for enforcement reasons. I don’t see that anybody “is going to die on the roadside” because of this decision.
Uncle Al, then that sums that up. As long as the Medical people can do what they have to.
Dallas county had to get rid of their traffic light cameras because a man successfully sued for the loss of half his estate due to the divorce that came from the red light ticket photo showing him with his mistress as he ran it.
The inside of your car falls under castle doctrine in Texas.
It was an invasion of privacy to take those photos.
Also don’t need a carry license to keep a hand gun in the car and it’s the same as a break-in of your home if someone opens your car door – it’s a felony. You can shoot them at that point.
Waiting for rioters to try it in Texas
Can someone have sex with an incapacitated woman and just say it was implied consent? Ask Bill Cosby.
I have a hard time understanding the differences between First Responders and First Responders. The Police saved my Brother’s life back in 1992, ’91? They, the police, were the First Responders to the vehicle collision. And that Police man was the one who wrapped my Brother’s head in some fucking shit he had in the boot of his car.
My Brother is alive because of some “shitty cop”.
After years of driving in Albuquerque, until I see proof of a lane change or turn I assume that a car with a turn signal on means the driver hit it while opening a beer.
Hilariious: just pretend to fall asleep.
That must br part of the Constitution inside the Judges head. I have never seen a subsection labeled Transfusions, medical procedures. The sample could not be used to incriminate someone.
Would be awful if this judicial activist lost a loved one because a passed out drunk knows the courts have given him a license to drink way too much and drive.
Citing a specific Constitution article and taking it to mean what it literally says is the sort of “judicial activism” I could use lots more of. I normally don’t respond to Anonymous Coward posts, but this one is particularly stupid.
A couple of counties south of where I live in Georgia, Douglas County, there are videos on the internet of deputies strapping people into a restraining chair in the jail to have blood drawn against their will.
Their statement at the time was this was justified under Georgia’s implied consent statute. Don’t know if it is still going on.
I heard that too, I think it’s called “The renewed carnage on the highways act”
“Implied Consent” is fucking stupid.
Make it “Consent” and be done with it. When you sign for your Driver’s License, you, explicitly, (written into the contract) consent to blood draw.
Takes all the bullshit out of it – except for the unlicensed drunk.
But, of course, if driving without a license is illegal, nobody’ll do it.
izlamo delenda est …
Erik
JUNE 26, 2020 AT 11:32 PM
“I have a hard time understanding the differences between First Responders and First Responders. The Police saved my Brother’s life back in 1992, ’91? They, the police, were the First Responders to the vehicle collision. And that Police man was the one who wrapped my Brother’s head in some fucking shit he had in the boot of his car.
My Brother is alive because of some “shitty cop”.”
…First Responder means different things at different times and places officially, but the loose definition is first person with any formal medical training on the scene. I was an EMS trained first responder with a fire agency at one time, and I’m a formally trained first responder as a side task for my industrial employer now, and the level of training from one to another is VASTLY different, so I can tell you without question that the title tells you nothing about the actual skill level, only that they have some.
…the police are great First Responders because they do have some training and some equipment, and they are usually already in their Code 3 capable vehicles with one of them likey close to a call, so they would generally get there before any FD people and at least summarize the emergency for us.
This was sometimes useful, and I can’t tell you how many choking victims they saved or how many times they told us to “step it up” because it was very severe, and the nature of some EMS calls made it advantageous that someone with a gun went in first, so it was mostly a good thing. There was a time or two when the cops took advantage of a call to get into a house they were interested in without a warrant, and one time they were rolling around on the floor behind me with a stroke patient’s drug dealing son (which they later put, in cuffs, in the front seat of the squad NEXT to me which made for a fun trip to the hospital), but it was rare and I always felt much better that a cop was on scene ahead of us.
…but “training” doesn’t mean “depth”. We sometimes referred to them as “Canaries” on nascent firegrounds as they often went in with no breathing apparatus and not enough flashlights, so sometimes the rescuers became the rescued. Our cops didn’t lack for bravery, but sometimes did for common sense.
So God bless the cop that He used to aid your brother, but in my experience, he’s the rule, not the exception. This isn’t well known as the press/media NEVER mention it, but the police save FAR more lives than they EVER take….
Uncle Al JUNE 26, 2020 AT 10:05 PM
“@Erik:
And now the guy who really needs a roadside blood test is going to die on the roadside.
What the court decided was that a roadside blood test cannot be used as evidence of impairment/intoxication. EMTs can still do whatever EMTs can already do to evaluate and stabilize a patient. Enforcers do not test blood for medical reasons, only for enforcement reasons. I don’t see that anybody “is going to die on the roadside” because of this decision.”
…blood tests would be pretty odd at an accident scene anyway. Usually you have your hands full just keeping the blood INSIDE at that point.
The hospital can figure out what’s IN it LATER, if they want.
…if they suspect there’s an issue with drugs or alcohol they may test for this at the hospital anyway becasue it’s MEDICALLY relevant, but they can’t SHARE it with the POLICE. If you have an unconcious patient, you’d best be LOOKING for things that might make him, you know, die, even though the squad probably Narced him anyway as part of an “unknown unconcious” protocol because these folks frequently “mix their pleasures” (as THIS guy was) and Narcan is an opiate ONLY antagonist, so it won’t do ANYTHING about any OTHER stuff and he may still be dying of some over overdose or have something in his system that will react adversely with cardiac drugs or surgical anaestetics.
…so the problem wasn’t the blood test, the problem was the cop ORDERING the blood test.
The hospital can do whatever they need to save his life, THAT’S the MEDICAL part of implied consent, that it is assumed that a person not able to communicate with you and doesn’t have a DNR would implicily WANT you to do whatever is medically necessary to save their life.
And anyway, what’s the hurry? It’s a test that they’re probably going to do ANYWAY.
…and I’m sure the results can be supoenaed later…
“Implied consent”: It ain’t never rape. As long as you start with “Surprise!”
@janitor June 26, 2020 at 9:37 pm
> Can be fixed it by making it an irrevocable express signed consent when licenses are got or renewed.
Oh! Karen! Queen of All the Karens!
We’re not worthy!