Mediaboss Marketing

The North Dakota Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a criminal judgment against a man who argued that the state violated his Fourth Amendment rights, as well as the state equivalent of those rights, by charging him for refusing to submit to a chemical test.

The court's decision answered a question asked shortly after North Dakota lawmakers criminalized refusal to submit as part of a broader effort to stiffen the penalties for drunken driving in 2013.

"Driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right, and issubject to reasonable control by the state under its police power," Supreme Court Justice Lisa McEvers wrote in an opinion signed by all five justices.

The justices affirmed the argument offered by the state that one gives implied consent to be searched when one gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

In doing so, the justices upheld the conviction against Danny Birchfield, who drove his vehicle into a Morton County ditch in October of 2013 in a case that would go from the South Central District Court to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Several states criminalize the refusal to submit to a chemical test, often by making the penalty for refusal the same as that for being convicted of drunken driving.

McEvers cited several court decisions, at the state and federal levels, upholding states' rights to do so.

The North Dakota Supreme Court also ruled the 2013 United States Supreme Court decision in McNeely v. Missouri, rendered shortly before North Dakota criminalized refusal, did not invalidate the legal framework for criminal penalties.

Attorneys for Birchfield and another defendant accused of refusal to submit argued that the McNeely decision, which ruled that the forcible extraction of blood from a suspected drunken driver constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, applied to criminal penalties as well. The attorneys argued that by punishing a person for refusing to be tested, the state effectively removed that person's right to refuse being tested.

McEvers wrote that "since the (United States) Supreme Court's ruling in McNeely, criminal refusal statutes have continued to withstand Fourth Amendment challenges, particularly in Minnesota."

See the original post here:
Penalties for DUI testing refusal upheld

The North Dakota Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a criminal judgment against a man who argued that the state violated his Fourth Amendment rights, as well as the state equivalent of those rights, by charging him for refusing to submit to a chemical test.

The court's decision answered a question asked shortly after North Dakota lawmakers criminalized refusal to submit as part of a broader effort to stiffen the penalties for drunken driving in 2013.

"Driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right, and issubject to reasonable control by the state under its police power," Supreme Court Justice Lisa McEvers wrote in an opinion signed by all five justices.

The justices affirmed the argument offered by the state that one gives implied consent to be searched when one gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

In doing so, the justices upheld the conviction against Danny Birchfield, who drove his vehicle into a Morton County ditch in October of 2013 in a case that would go from the South Central District Court to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Several states criminalize the refusal to submit to a chemical test, often by making the penalty for refusal the same as that for being convicted of drunken driving.

McEvers cited several court decisions, at the state and federal levels, upholding states' rights to do so.

The North Dakota Supreme Court also ruled the 2013 United States Supreme Court decision in McNeely v. Missouri, rendered shortly before North Dakota criminalized refusal, did not invalidate the legal framework for criminal penalties.

Attorneys for Birchfield and another defendant accused of refusal to submit argued that the McNeely decision, which ruled that the forcible extraction of blood from a suspected drunken driver constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, applied to criminal penalties as well. The attorneys argued that by punishing a person for refusing to be tested, the state effectively removed that person's right to refuse being tested.

McEvers wrote that "since the (United States) Supreme Court's ruling in McNeely, criminal refusal statutes have continued to withstand Fourth Amendment challenges, particularly in Minnesota."

Read the rest here:
Penalties for refusal of DUI testing upheld

Fourth Amendment video P.1

By: Sabrina Ruiz

Read more:
Fourth Amendment video P.1 - Video

[PS4] GTA V - Team Deathmatch on Fourth Amendment.
Best sniper in history @ 2:11 carbine rifle op.

By: Gamesk0

More here:
[PS4] GTA V - Team Deathmatch on Fourth Amendment. - Video

Law enforcement's warrantless use of surveillance technology ignores and mocks Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The latest insult to Americans' rights is the FBI's insistence that it can indiscriminately gather the identities and locations and intercept the calls and texts of those using cellphones in public places.

As we've noted before, the FBI does so via stingray devices that mimic cell towers. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and fellow member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., are questioning an FBI policy exception that allows warrantless stingray use in public places.

So long as they're not shouting, cellphone users do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. Warrantless cellphone monitoring there is just as unreasonable as seizing a letter written in a coffeehouse would be.

It's the same principle behind the Supreme Court ruling requiring warrants for GPS tracking of suspects' vehicles and behind nine states' laws, plus rulings by Massachusetts' and Florida's highest courts, requiring warrants for real-time cellphone tracking.

The FBI's warrantless stingray use necessitates more such judicial and legislative actions that guard against law-enforcement overreach by reinforcing the Fourth Amendment's essential requirement of getting a warrant.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

Read the original:
The stingray assault: Get a warrant