https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...doing-her-job/
Sounds like it to me. Nurses lives matter!
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...doing-her-job/Most certainly that's an illegal arrest. AND THE officer in charge who ordered him to collect the blood KNOWING there was no warrant, PC or consent, along with the other officer who came up on the scene and said "YUP, arrest that bitch".. ALL NEED To lose their badge...
Sounds like it to me. Nurses lives matter!
. Originally Posted by WTF
looks like the officer wasn't aware of supreme court 2016 ruling on blood samples. Originally Posted by dilbert firestormHow long as he been on the fucking job?
How long as he been on the fucking job?like I said, this is the result of a breakdown in training and communication.
AND SINCE ignorance of the law is no excuse for US PEOPLE, why the hell should it be an excuse for an OFFICER of the law, who SWEARS an oath to uphold the bloody law.. Originally Posted by garhkal
133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013)The Court unfortunately doesn't provide clear standards. Given the current makeup of the SCOTUS this decision might be otherwise if another opportunity arises.
MISSOURI, Petitioner
v.
Tyler G. McNEELY.
No. 11-1425.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided April 17, 2013.
Justice SOTOMAYOR announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, II-B, and IV, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-C and III, in which Justice SCALIA, Justice GINSBURG, and Justice KAGAN join.
In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), this Court upheld a warrantless blood test of an individual arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol because the officer "might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened the destruction of evidence." Id., at 770, 86 S.Ct. 1826 (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases. We conclude that it does not, and we hold, consistent with general Fourth Amendment principles, that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.
The Court unfortunately doesn't provide clear standards. Given the current makeup of the SCOTUS this decision might be otherwise if another opportunity arises.What do you think LL? Do you think the officer was correct?
Texas followed this case in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Originally Posted by LexusLover