U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: State Supreme Court Just Ruled Mandatory DUI Tests are Unconstitutional
Source:
Free Thought Project/KCTV
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ka ... -testing-dui-unconstitutional/
Published: Feb 27, 2016
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2016-02-27 20:21:10 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 13506
Comments: 109
On Friday, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the state’s DUI testing refusal law unconstitutional, setting a remarkable precedent concerning forced testing of those suspected of driving under the influence. In a 6-1 ruling, the court decided the state’s law, which had made it a crime to refuse breathalyzer or blood alcohol tests without a court-ordered warrant, is excessive punishment. Those tests, the court found, amounted to searches, and the Kansas law “punishes people for exercising their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” reported the Kansas City Star. “In essence, the state’s reasons are not good enough, and its law not precise enough, to encroach on the fundamental liberty interest in avoiding an unreasonable search,” wrote Justice Marla Luckert for the majority, according to KCTV. According to Kansas law, the act of operating a motor vehicle gives implied consent for breath, blood, or urine testing to prove one’s sobriety, but the Supreme Court ruled the state’s Constitution allows for the withdrawal of consent without punishment for doing so. Previously, refusing a sobriety test qualified as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of no less than $1,250. “Once a suspect withdraws consent, whether it be express consent or implied (under the statute), a search based on that consent cannot proceed,” the court decided. According to the court, the state’s “compelling interest” to combat impaired driving and prosecute cases of DUI does not trump people’s fundamental individual liberties as protected by the Constitution. Justice Caleb Stegall wrote the lone dissenting opinion, saying there are certain situations where the law could adhere to constitutionality, and as such, it should be applied on a case by case basis. “By making this case about consent,” There are similar laws from other states currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, and Kansas’ could potentially wind up under the high court’s consideration as well. In a related ruling, the Kansas Supreme Court also decided the case of an individual who consented to testing after being told he would be criminally prosecuted for refusing. According to the court, such a ‘warning’ is considered “coercive,” thus any consent given in such circumstances would be involuntary. “Jay Norton, an Olathe criminal defense lawyer and expert on DUI law, said the law has often been used ‘as a hammer’ to induce people to plead guilty to DUI to avoid being charged with the additional crime of refusing a test,” reported the Star. Norton also said the law represented “prosecutorial overreach at its zenith.” Christopher Mann, who sits on the national board of directors for Mothers Against Drunk Driving and is a former member of the Lawrence Police Department, said the organization didn’t agree with the court’s ruling. “We support penalties for refusing to take chemical tests,” Mann explained. “We think law enforcement members need to have all the tools at their disposal to keep our roads safe from drunken drivers who kill about 10,000 people a year.” “The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of the individual citizen to be free from forced searches by the government,” Norton stated. Friday, Norton enthused, was a “great day” for both the Kansas and U.S. Constitutions.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-51) not displayed.
.
.
.
#52. To: misterwhite (#47)
Car? You can't ride a bicycle down the middle of the freeway? It's tyranny I tells ya!!!
Actual decision, please. Not a crackpot website's misrepresentations. Just one. Surely you can manage that?
I'll add this. I filed a 33 page brief for a driving without a license case. I was ready to fight. Then the court dismissed the charges, and I won. If you fight you win.
Just one. Surely you can manage that? You dumb ass. It is in post 51. If you say it is not there then you are calling me a liar and you will be promptly banned. I will not put up with your bullshit lying today.
Come on pussy say something in response to 51. Show me something that isn't accurate.
Fake quote: Actual quote:
57 Kaboom!!!!
Really? Well if it's a right then everyone has that right, correct? Meaning everyone can drive a car, correct? That's your position?
Yep. They don't need no steenking licences or vehicle inspections.
That's your position? Yes, assuming you can operate the vehicle. Assuming you haven't lost that right by drunk driving or something like that. You are supposed to have the right to travel by the means of the day. I believe you can lose that right of you do harm to others or put others life at risk. But the starting point is you have that right. Certainly.
The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Actual quote: "A State cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law; but this does not necessarily imply that all trials in the State courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. This requirement of the Constitution is met if the trial is had according to the settled course of judicial proceedings. Due process of law is process according to the law of the land." Looks like they are saying the same thing.
Bull crap!
I've never had my vehicle inspected. Except when taking drivers license test. No you don't need a license to exercise a right. Certainly not.
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
They have rights, dammit! And no one can infringe those rights with age restrictions and tests and licenses and stupid Rules of the Road. If a drunk 10-year-old wants to hop in dad's car and hit the road, he has a God- given right to do so!
Your "right" to use the road built and maintained at public expense is limited to use in accordance with to the rules set for their use. Didn't you just unintentionally admit that the "right" could be removed for drunk driving?
They say pretty much the same thing. The state can not diminish the rights of the people. That is common sense. Rights aren't privileges. So they can't be taken away. Duh
Well, there goes your argument.
The rules are the constitution. You have a fifth amendment right to be secure in your papers person and effects. That means they can't constitutionally pass a law requiring you to surrender those documents. Which they do in order to get a "license". The difference between you and I. I belive in freedom. You believe you unconstitutional government micromanagement and control over the people. It is as simple as that.
That was done in post #65.
That means you have to stop at red lights, stop signs, and obey the speed limit. It doesn't mean they can restrict your right to drive without you committing some kind of crime like DUI.
The how do illegals get driver's licenses?
I can't help but wonder why a couple of dyed-in-the-wool statist shills would even want to post at a site called Liberty's Flame. Those two yahoos have utterly no concept of liberty. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much It wasn't unintentional. You can lose a right. If you say drive drunk and kill someone. Or if you drive drunk and put others in danger. I have no problem with that. It is my opinion and I believe supported by the constitution and common sense that you start with that right to travel by the means of the day. No government permission needed. Like I said I already won in court over this years ago. I do have a license and have had one for years. It's just less hassle that way.
WHAT?? The court ruled that the right may be regulated. They didn't limit the regulation to Rules of the Road. Now you're just making shit up.
Nice foot shot. By the way, have you ever read the actual decision?
Those two yahoos have utterly no concept of liberty. I understand. It is for fun. They like to talk about this stuff. They are ok despite me calling one of them a pussy. They are right on some issues. They just want the government to control us to much. They must live in fear of people with real freedoms. I don't think they are bad or evil. They are just week and need to feel safe from real men who know what freedom is. It is really a feminine characteristic. You know that need to be protected. So I guess we could just say they are very feminine.
But not taken away and making you give up your documents in order to exercise that right. That would violate the fifth amendment. Have you actually ever read the fifth amendment? '
"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson
That was a state court decision.
Do you know the difference between law and color of law? If a law violates the constitution is it really a law?
Well, clearly, they have the right to print their own! Freedom!!!
There is a fifth amendment equivelant in every state. Also the fifth amendment requires states to obey it. There is no "congress shall make no las...." phrase in the fifth amendment.
The Framers never intended for the Fifth Amendment to limit the inherent police powers of the States.
So quote it. An actual quote, please.
"I don't give a shit what some judge says." However, it appears as though A K A Stone does give a shit what some judge says when that judge agrees.
No proof is required to vote?
However, it appears as though A K A Stone does give a shit what some judge says when that judge agrees. Yes when they agree with me they are right. Because I seek and tell the truth. It's not that a judge says it that I don't agree with. It is if they get it wrong I don't give a shit about what they say. I do respect them when they get it right, For example you like Judge Roberts and agree with all of his decisions.
Not until a couple of years ago.
That is incorrect. If you don't know that perhaps you should go back and get your GED.
Not only did I read it, I understand it. "Self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself to an accusation or charge of crime". It has nothing to do with applying for a drivers license.
Comments (93 - 109) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBut if you want to use a car ...
#53. To: A K A Stone (#51)
#54. To: Roscoe (#50)
#55. To: Roscoe (#53)
Actual decision, please. Not a crackpot website's misrepresentations.
#56. To: Roscoe (#55)
#57. To: A K A Stone (#55)
The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."
"A State cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law; but this does not necessarily imply that all trials in the State courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. This requirement of the Constitution is met if the trial is had according to the settled course of judicial proceedings. Due process of law is process according to the law of the land."
#58. To: A K A Stone (#56)
Show me something that isn't accurate.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#48)
"There have been many decisions that recognize driving as a right."
#60. To: misterwhite (#59)
Meaning everyone can drive a car, correct?
#61. To: misterwhite (#59)
Really? Well if it's a right then everyone has that right, correct? Meaning everyone can drive a car, correct?
#62. To: Roscoe (#57)
Fake quote:
#63. To: A K A Stone (#62)
Looks like they are saying the same thing.
#64. To: Roscoe (#60)
Yep. They don't need no steenking licences or vehicle inspections.
#65. To: Roscoe (#63)
#66. To: Roscoe (#60)
"They don't need no steenking licences or vehicle inspections."
#67. To: A K A Stone (#64)
No you don't need a license to exercise a right.
#68. To: Roscoe (#63)
Looks like they are saying the same thing. Bull crap!
#69. To: A K A Stone (#65)
"though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience."
#70. To: misterwhite (#66)
#71. To: Roscoe (#67)
"Didn't you just unintentionally admit that the "right" could be removed for drunk driving?"
#72. To: misterwhite (#69)
Well, there goes your argument.
#73. To: A K A Stone (#70)
Which they do in order to get a "license".
#74. To: A K A Stone (#70)
The difference between you and I. I belive in freedom.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#75. To: misterwhite (#71)
"Didn't you just unintentionally admit that the "right" could be removed for drunk driving?" That was done in post #65.
#76. To: A K A Stone (#72)
"That means you have to stop at red lights, stop signs, and obey the speed limit."
#77. To: A K A Stone (#65)
this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.
#78. To: Deckard (#74)
I can't help but wonder why a couple of dyed-in-the-wool statist shills would even want to post at a site called Liberty's Flame.
#79. To: misterwhite (#76)
The court ruled that the right may be regulated.
#80. To: Deckard (#74)
#81. To: A K A Stone (#79)
That would violate the fifth amendment.
#82. To: Roscoe (#80)
"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice,
#83. To: misterwhite (#73)
The how do illegals get driver's licenses?
#84. To: Roscoe (#81)
That would violate the fifth amendment. That was a state court decision.
#85. To: A K A Stone (#82)
#86. To: A K A Stone (#84)
There is a fifth amendment equivelant in every state.
#87. To: Roscoe, A K A Stone (#53)
"Actual decision, please."
-- A K A Stone
#88. To: A K A Stone (#79)
"But not taken away and making you give up your documents in order to exercise that right."
#89. To: misterwhite (#87)
"I don't give a shit what some judge says." -- A K A Stone
#90. To: misterwhite (#88)
No proof is required to vote?
#91. To: Roscoe (#85)
The Framers never intended for the Fifth Amendment to limit the inherent police powers of the States.
#92. To: A K A Stone (#79)
"Have you actually ever read the fifth amendment?"
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]