Implied Consent Law Case Study

Under Missouri law there are two elements that make up drunk driving, those elements are (1) is the suspect driving a motor vehicle and (2) is the suspects blood alcohol level above .08. State v. Gittemeier, 400 S. W. 3d 838, 841-844 (Mo. Ct. App. E. D. 2013). The facts provide that both suspects blood alcohol level was over what is required by the statute. Driving a motor vehicle is defined as (1) a motorized mechanical device on wheels and (2) driving on a highway. Covert v. Fisher, 151 S. W.3d 70, 72-77 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2004). This analysis will discuss whether the suspects were driving on a highway.

One of the positions that MADD holds concerning enforcement of anti-drunk driving legislation is the use of sobriety checkpoints and high visibility enforcement. As is stated on the “MADD’s Positions on Enforcement” page, “MADD supports the frequent and regular use of highly publicized sobriety checkpoints and other high visibility enforcement programs to detect and apprehend alcohol and other drug impaired drivers, and as a visible deterrent to drinking and driving” (MADD). However, there is some concern when it comes to this tactic which could undermine the status of MADD, such as Kenneth H. Beck’s evaluation of “Maryland’s anti0drunk driving program, Checkpoint Strikeforce.” From this study’s examination of the first three years of the

Colorado law outlines driving under the influence, driving while impaired, and driving with excessive alcoholic content in C.R.S. § 42-4-1301. Furthermore, pursuant to C.R.S. § 42-4-1301.1 any person who drives a motor vehicle on the streets of Colorado has expressly consented to cooperating in the taking and completing of any test or tests of breath or blood to determine or estimate his or her blood alcohol content (“BAC”) if directed by a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence or impaired as defined in C.R.S. § 42-4-1031. As such, in situations where alcohol may be involved an officer is required to have probable cause to request a driver to submit to a breath or blood test for BAC. The standard of “probable cause to require a test” is defined as an officer's belief “the person was driving a motor vehicle” while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. See C.R.S. § 42-4-1301.1(2)(a)(I).

Recently, the Pennsylvania governor signed new legislation that requires first-time DUI offenders to install ignition interlock devices in their vehicles. Such devices are electronic systems that are intended to keep people who have sufficiently high blood alcohol content (BAC) levels from operating their vehicles. Essentially, the system requires would-be drivers to blow into the device to test their BAC levels which, if sufficiently

Missouri v. McNeely(2013) was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on an appeal from the Supreme Court in Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment under exigent circumstances. On October 3, 2010, Tyler Gabriel McNeely was stopped by a police officer in Missouri for speeding and crossing over a centerline. The police officer asked McNeely if he could take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol level because he had noticed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol. After refusing to take the breath test, McNeely was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital so they could do a blood test. McNeely refused, but the officer still told a lab technician to take his blood. His blood alcohol level tested far above the legal limit, and he was later charged with driving under the influence. He later argued that the taking of his blood without consent violated his Fourth Amendment rights in which the court agreed. I found this case interesting because we see a lot of drunk driving today and it 's an uneasy feeling knowing that drunk drivers could possibly get away with the crime they are committing since it may take a while for an officer to get a warrant. I would like to see the stages that the Supreme Court went through to get to the decision they came up with.

If the individual refuses to take the test at the scene, based on suspicion the officer will make the arrest. After the arrest, if the individual continues to refuse tests, the charge includes violation of the MVD implied consent rule. The officer may ask the court to order the test.

This paper will examine the issue of whether the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath and blood tests incident to arrests for drunk driving.

“Any person who drives a vehicle on a highway or public vehicular area thereby gives consent to a chemical analysis if charged with an implied-consent offense. Any law enforcement officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that the person charged has committed the implied-consent offense may obtain a chemical analysis of the person.”

Furthermore, they understand the factors that may compromise field sobriety tests and breath tests. Thus, it may be helpful for drivers who have been arrested for DUI to obtain legal representation. An attorney may question the accuracy of these types of tests, as well as whether their rights were upheld during the traffic stops that led to their arrests.

“In the hands of an impaired driver, a vehicle becomes a murderous weapon.” ( ) Everyone can think of someone who has driven impaired, or even maybe you have done it yourself. The fact that one can think of someone who has driven impaired is a problem. Too many people are getting behind the wheel after drinking, smoking; or are not paying attention while they drive. Impaired driving continues to a problem although strides have been made to make a difference. There are many different types of impaired driving, each that have their own consequences. These types, and consequences will be explored in this essay.

The Supreme Court attests. The Court noticed that its point of reference requests a case-by-case examination when lower courts figure out if urgent conditions advocated a warrantless pursuit. In spite of the fact that the State contended that exigency essentially exists in any DWI related blood test given that blood-alcohol content quickly decreases with time, the Court found no argumentation to embrace a per se rule. The Court concurred that essentially postponing a blood test to get a warrant would adversely influence the supportive value of the outcomes. However, it contemplated that when the state have sufficient time to get a warrant, the Fourth Amendment obliges it to do as such. While getting a warrant is unrealistic, the blood testing may well honor an exigency exception. Since the State construct its contention exclusively in light of the proposed per se rule, the Court declined to detail the significant elements courts must weigh while investigating exigency in DWI cases. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which this Court upheld a DWI suspect’s warrantless blood test where 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 (Missouri v. McNeely, 2013)

I reviewed the Applicant’s photos, proof of payment, estimate, police report and recorded statements. I reviewed the Respondent’s police report, scene diagram, vehicle damage photos, estimate and proof of payment. The police cited the Applicant driver for improper position for a left turn. The vehicle photos show that the Respondent vehicle was partially past the Applicant vehicle when the Applicant driver tuned into the Respondent vehicle. There is a small amount of shared responsibility of the Respondent driver because she admits that she saw the Applicant driver brake suddenly and veer right. This should have been a clue to the Respondent driver that the Applicant driver’s next action was not clear and the Respondent driver should have slowed

In Scotus blog, the United States Supreme Court judges against a familiar foe were at their best. It was very easy putting doctrinal clodhopping aside in trying out the amateur court team. Birchfield v. North Dakota a Wednesday court case involving laws imposing on motorist’s criminal penalties for being suspected of drunken driving (Birchfield v. North Dakota, 2016). Furthermore, when a chemical test, especially for breath or blood, was rejected. North Dakota with other eleven states passed measures avoiding annoying issues. These include how to obtain a warrant before you stick into the driver 's arm a needle or a tube in the driver 's mouth. Refusal to take a blood test led to the arrest of Danny Birchfield, who argued that this law was violating the Fourth Amendment typically requiring a police warrant to conduct a search. For North Dakota, motorists have to give their consent to chemical tests when they intend to drive in the state. Danny Birchfield challenged this saying that consent, which is legally mandated, does not permit at all. Birchfield’s problem was drunk driving since police had already arrested after he was driving into a ditch and forcefully attempting to turn out of it. He then emerged out of his car smelling alcohol. Fellow petitioners, in this case, were also losers after consolidating to his case. After almost hitting the stop sign, Steve Michael Bylund was also pulled over consequently holding his car on the road. An empty glass of wine is what was

This is a very interesting newspaper article out of the Tennessean. There is a huge case going on about drunk driving and field sobriety tests. This case consists of a 2009 DUI charge in Sevier County that was dismissed because car driver, David Bell, passed six field sobriety tests. The Tennessee Supreme Court has approved to take this case that could define if police officers can arrest people assumed of driving drunk after they have already pass field sobriety tests. Already three Tennessee courts have established that police needed the probable cause to arrest Bell and command a

The clock strikes three o’clock in the morning— the last call for alcohol. You stumble while exiting into the parking lot, scrambling for your car keys, you have been drinking but you are not that drunk. The roads are desolate. You only live a mile down the road, a straight drive, then a left into the drive way. The chances of getting pulled over: slim to none, and the chances of encountering another car on the road: infinitely smaller. Thus, the question stands: do you drive home? Or call a cab? Driving while impaired/under the influence (DWI/DUI) is against Minnesota state law and punishable up to seven years in jail time, $20,000 in fines and court fees, and/or license suspension depending on the following: blood alcohol content (BAC), number of prior offenses, property destruction, and/or loss of life (i.e., vehicular manslaughter) at the time of the arrest (information from Minnesota Department of Public Safety- Office of Traffic Safety). When consenting to be governed, as Thomas Hobbes writes in Leviathan, individuals agree to give up their natural right to everything in exchange for peace and security within a state (190). As a resident of the state of Minnesota, and within the context Hobbes’s social contract theory, I have consented to being governed not only by the state, but I have implicitly consented to follow any and all laws put forth by the political authority of the state as well. As a result, I am both legally obligated and morally obliged to obey the