State Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of GA DUI Law

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by mb90535im, Feb 18, 2019.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Did you read the article? The Exec Dir. of the prosecuting attorneys' council says they will get warrants for blood or urine. If a warrant is secured, then, yes, they will take it involuntarily.
     

  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Anyway, it is the correct result by the Supreme Court.
     
  3. mb90535im

    mb90535im Well-Known Member

    3,861
    33
    48
    My bad.
     
  4. Arty

    Arty Fire for effect

    220
    10
    18
    FWIW, I can't read references from AJC because I don't subscribe.
     
  5. mb90535im

    mb90535im Well-Known Member

    3,861
    33
    48
    Interesting. I don't subscribe either but only the stories in the myajc section appear to be behind a pay wall to me. I wonder if it is my location or ISP.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2019
  6. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,452
    507
    113
    Agree with MP -- correct decision. Still an issue for administrative suspensions, but not for criminal prosecutions.
     
  7. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
    Good.

    DUI laws should be thrown out anyway and replaced with heavy, heavy penalties if you cause an accident and hurt anyone while drunk. I.e. murder 2 instead of vehicular manslaughter if you kill someone, with mandatory minimum jail time.

    When someone is too drunk to drive, they're too drunk to care about DUI laws. They don't keep anyone safe, they just collect revenue. Make the idea of hurting someone by driving drunk so scary that most folks won't even want to risk drinking too much. And the folks that do are already doing it anyway.
     
    Tinkerhell likes this.
  8. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,537
    683
    113
    Next line of inquiry:

    Now that we know it would be a violation of one's rights to use a suspect's silence against him, WHEN COPS THREATEN TO DO THAT, is that coersion that takes away "actual consent" from a DUI suspect's "agreement" to take the requested blood / breath/ urine test post-arrest?

    A few years ago Georgia courts ruled that there has to be *actual* consent, not just following the statutory minimum standards for "implied consent."
     
  9. smn

    smn Active Member

    4,109
    11
    38
    Acquiescence is not consent.
     
  10. diamondback

    diamondback Well-Known Member

    1,224
    39
    48
    Are there a bunch of soft of crime democrat appointed justices on the state supreme court?