Thanks
What?
That is the motto of the great state of New Hampshire, where personal freedoms are a matter of special pride.
Ah. Thanks.
This blog entry says:
But here is a detailed description of procedures used, and it appears that the warrant and supporting affidavit were faxed to the judge, who faxed them back.
So I don’t know.
This.
I don’t know the background on the SC decision but setting up roadblocks to see if a crime might be in progress was a bad precedent.
I also don’t see how a judge could rule on a mandatory check without a prior indication of driver incapacitation.
As far as forcing a person to give blood, that flies in the face of the 5th amendment and the ability to refuse a breathalyzer test.
Yeah… not quite.
Schmerber v. California, 384 US 757 (1966)
That ranks up there with imminent domain decisions.
not really, but thanks for playing.
well based on your debate response … nuh uh
I’m not going to derail the thread with multiple posts about you claiming that you know more about 5th amendment jurisprudence than the supreme court.
but since you insist, the 5th amendment was born from concerns about using torture to extract testimonial evidence from suspects. blood chemistry isn’t testimonial.
And burning a flag isn’t actual speech.
that isn’t a fifth amendment issue, now is it.
No, it’s an example of interpretation of communication to mean more than talking. In this case, it’s a function of self incrimination whether it’s a breathalizer test or a blood test.
except the phrase “self incrimination” and the word “communication” do not appear anywhere in the text of the 5th.
An even stronger reason when dealing with the concept of self incrimination.
i could respond if your words were intelligible. and if you wanted to create your own thread on the matter.
uh huh.
glad you agree.
yeah that’s what I meant in response to a person who ends a debate with an insult.