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: 15869
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 (1-69) not displayed.
.
.
.
#70. To: misterwhite (#66)
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.
A "couple of years" being defined as "since 1950"?
But you and you alone define "right", correct? Just curious. Do judges check with you before they render their decisions? You being the authority on right and wrong.
Until a couple of years ago here in Ohio. But you make the point that the founders didn't think you need a license to vote. Making my broader point.
Just curious. Do judges check with you before they render their decisions? You being the authority on right and wrong. I know the truth. But it isn't because i'm magical. It is because I read it honestly. I don't add or subtract. No judges don't consult with me. But if they did we wouldn't have Obamacare or a whole bunch of other unconstitutional pretend laws on the books.
Ahem. Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 US 243 (1833) Chief Justice Marshall, writing far the unanimous Court: If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. In their several Constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested, such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest... Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language...
And even earlier.
He has his opinion and he was a good man. However the fifth amendment talks about crimes that were not federal crimes at the time. It talks about things that were for the states. The wording of the fifth amendment certainly says it applies to "all criminal" cases. If you went back and got your GED you would learn what the word "all" means.
That was ruled unconstitutional. Maybe you need some remedial history lessons also.
I'm just going to throw a curb ball at you. You do agree that the money we have is illegal since congress only has power to coin money. I'm sure you also agree that congress should set the value of the money as the constitution clearly requires.
Bzzzzt. Poll taxes. You not only could be required to obtain conditional permission, you could even be required to pay for that "right." And you could be prevented from voting if you couldn't prove that you owned land.
Those universally understood historic facts were never "ruled unconstitional." Which is why you couldn't provide a quote. But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments.
There is no "congress shall make no las...." phrase in the fifth amendment. ARTICLE VI, the Supremacy Clause, makes it clear that States are 'bound thereby' to obey the Constitution, and its amendments. The "Congress shall make no law" line of the first amendment is deliberately misinterpreted by many statists like roscoe/misterwhite to mean that ALL of our rights are subject to State constitutional revisions. This misinterpretation was corrected by the 14th Amendment, and is not, and never has been a rational argument..
Maybe. What do you think of the Obama Coin idea?
Since that decision has always been left to each state, the Founders had no opinion whatsoever.
Chief Justice Marshall, writing far the unanimous Court: "The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated." Marshall's decision in Barron must be viewed in a defense of slavery context. -- He was trying to prevent the civil war by claiming States could deny 5th amendment rights to slaves. Apparently, roscoe/misterwhite still think this way..
The rules of travel cannot mean that you give up other rights recognized by government. If the police want to bust people for a DWI, use time tested methods. He was sloshed, couldn't or wouldn't walk a line, so I video taped him and presented it at court, would be logical and not violate his rights. When you make him guilty of the crime just because he refuses to blow in a machine, or let you take his blood, that is offensive to American values. The problem is, the eyewitness testimony with video taping requires cops to show up at court. With readings on a machine, they can spin out convictions in a way to make sure the judges retirement fund is always full up.
There are a number of issues associated with our DWI laws, but the recent ruling only dealt with one of them: In the past, refusing a sobriety test qualified as a misdemeanor. Now there is no penalty for refusing a sobriety test (in Kansas). That's it.
#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?"
#93. To: A K A Stone (#90)
No proof is required to vote?
Not until a couple of years ago.
#94. To: A K A Stone (#89)
"I do respect them when they get it right"
#95. To: misterwhite (#93)
A "couple of years" being defined as "since 1950"?
#96. To: misterwhite (#94)
But you and you alone define "right", correct?
#97. To: A K A Stone (#91)
That is incorrect. If you don't know that perhaps you should go back and get your GED.
The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes...
#98. To: misterwhite (#93)
A "couple of years" being defined as "since 1950"?
#99. To: Roscoe (#97)
#100. To: Roscoe (#98)
#101. To: Roscoe (#98)
#102. To: A K A Stone (#95)
the founders didn't think you need a license to vote.
#103. To: A K A Stone (#100)
That was ruled unconstitutional.
What Framer ever said that the Federal Bill of Rights was secretly a state Bill of Right?
#104. To: A K A Stone, y'all (#84)
the fifth amendment requires states to obey it.
#105. To: A K A Stone (#101)
#106. To: A K A Stone (#95)
"But you make the point that the founders didn't think you need a license to vote."
#107. To: A K A Stone, y'all (#99)
Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 US 243 (1833)
#108. To: misterwhite (#47)
#109. To: jeremiad (#108)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]