I believe that if there is an accident that is presumed to be caused by a drunk driver there should be no warrant needed to test a persons alcohol level. If the accident has caused significant damage to vehicles and has injured other drivers it is important that those injured receive justice. The drunk driver that caused that accident should be charged with everything they are responsible for and it is important to know if the driver was under the influence and should be punished for breaking that law. I agree with the rule that North Dakota has that even if you refuse to be tested you should be charged equally to if you did and are positive for being under the influence. I support the courts decisions that a warrant is not needed to permit a DUI test.
I found this article particularly interesting especially after just covering the judiciary branch in class. The fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. In the case of drunk driving, I think this should not be classified as against the 4th amendment. Although driving is a right most people should have access to, it is also still a privilege for people who take driving as a serious responsibility. If a person decides to drink and drive then they are a danger to themselves and other drivers. If they are suspected of being drunk the cop should be able to breathalyze them to protect the safety of other people. The only reason a person would want to refuse the breathalyzer is if they are guilty and know they will blow a number. I think it should be law that the person blow and if not then they still get charged the same way someone who blew would be.
I think this was an interesting article to read, especially since we have just covered information about the supreme court and how they often take cases involving controversial constitutional ideals. I absolutely believe that cops have the right to search if there is probable cause. I agree with Lindsey on the idea that if someone is refusing to have their blood alcohol content tested, then they must be guilty. If you were sober you would have no problem proving your innocence. In fact, I would think you would choose to prove your innocence over taking a ride down to the station and being put in a jail cell. I believe cops have the right to be overly cautious when dealing with possible drunk driving scenarios because it is a crime that no only endangers the driver, but could also endanger hundreds of other people on the road.
The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant or probable cause. If a person is in an accident I believe this is probable cause to test the person’s alcohol level, especially since drunk driving has presently become a much bigger issue. I agree with Kelli and Lindsay when they say that an innocence person would consent to the tests, so if someone refuses the test they are most likely guilty. Automobile accidents are one of the leading causes of death for young people in the United States. It is necessary to take precautions so that people will not drive drunk and people that do drunk drive will be forced to take responsibility for their actions.
If there is an accident that is thought to be caused by drunk driving there shouldn't have to be a warrant to test their alcohol level. Drunk driving is the cause of many accidents, especially for young people. If there is anything that can be done to reduce that, then it should be done. Like a few of the other people said above, if a person is okay with taking the alcohol level test they are probably innocent and if they don’t agree to do it then the might not be innocent. The person that was drunk driving should take responsibility for what they have done.
Police have no right to search your personal items without a warrant and probable cause. If there is an accident whether it be minor or major, I view that as a probable cause to get a warrant to search a personal car. I believe that if a driver gets pulled over and/or gets in an accident and they are asked to breathalyze and they decline, I also think that is a probable cause for a search warrant. I think it proves them guilty. Drunk driving is one of the most selfish things one person can do in their lifetime. It endangers the person driving and those surrounded by them. I support the courts decisions because I am 150% against drunk driving. People must know that their actions are wrong and they must be punished for their bad decisions.
I agree with Kristen. In no way is testing a person's alcohol level when they caused an accident unreasonable, especially if they were swerving beforehand or if the police believe that he in under the influence. Causing an accident is probable cause. If a person asks the officer to get a warrant, the cop will most likely arrest him or her on suspicion of drunk driving, take them to the station, and draw their blood their. However, if a person has below the legal limit of alcohol then they should have no problem agreeing to take a blood test. Driving under the influence is illegal and one of the leading causes of death, especially for young adults. If someone is driving under the influence and does cause an accident, then they should take responsibility for their actions and not try to find a legal loophole.
i agree that police have the right to test for alcohol in a drivers system. If they are causing a problem on the road i.e. swerving, speeding, etc, then then a police is completely justified to pull them over. If when they speak to the driver and he/she appears to be under the influence then a warrant should not be required for testing the alcohol level. Like Kelly said, a person should have no problem proving their innocence, and if they refuse to be tested there clearly must be something they are hiding. All of the statements above present valid opinions and i agree mostly with Kelli and Lindsey.
I understand both sides of this situation. People in general have the right to remain silent when being under arrest, and also, allowed to refuse a DUI test. If they refuse, they are taken to the hospital, and there is where they have their blood tested and be told their alcohol content in their blood. Obviously, I would say in probably 99% of cases, with no actual statistics behind it, that people refuse to take the test because they are guilty, not that it is an invasion of privacy or is breaking the Fourth Amendment. If the person's actions are hurting or could hurt other people, then that is one of the reasons that a warrant is valid to have.
I agree that police shouldn’t need a warrant to test someone’s alcohol level if they are suspected of drunk driving. Drunk driving is a big issue today because it can cause significant damage to both the driver and any other driver or pedestrian he or she comes into contact with. Because of this, police should be completely justified in testing for a driver’s alcohol level if he or she seems to be under the influence. As most of the others commented, if someone refuses the tests, then they have most likely been drinking and don’t want to get caught. Because drunk driving is one of the leading causes of death, something has to be done about it, so police should absolutely have the power to test someone without a warrant. If the person is innocent then the ordeal is simply an inconvenience, but if the person is guilty then someone will have been stopped from being an enormous danger on the road.
I think that within reason and with probable cause that police should be able to do a breathalizer test on a driver. Drunk driving is nothing to take lightly and needs to be taken seriously. It is all to often that drunk drivers take the lives of innocent people yet the drunk lives to see another day. Although some might think it breaks the Fourth Amendment, I think that drunk driving is a case it should exculd. I do think you should be able to deny a breathalizer test but if you decide to take this path that the person should be treated as if they blew numbers over the legal limit.
I firmly believe in warrants and the process with which our country operates. The right to protection and personal property is among the most important, however, I believe that if there is an accident that is presumed to be caused by a drunk driver there should be no warrant needed to test a persons alcohol level. If the accident has caused significant damage to vehicles and has injured other drivers it is important that those injured receive justice. The drunk driver that caused that accident should be charged with everything they are responsible for and it is important to know if the driver was under the influence and should be punished for breaking that law. I agree with the rule that North Dakota has that even if you refuse to be tested you should be charged equally to if you did and are positive for being under the influence. I support the courts decisions that a warrant is not needed to permit a DUI test.
The Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". I agree with this amendment, however, I believe that it is completely within reason to perform a breathalyzer test without a warrant. Drunk driving is an issue that should not be taken lightly. When an individual is driving under the influence, he or she puts the lives of the people in every car that he or she passes on the road in jeopardy. Breathalyzer tests are also fairly simple and are largely noninvasive, so taking the test should not be an issue to many people.
I found this interesting to read because we learned a lot about the fourth amendment and went into depth with it. I also believe that cops have the right to search if there is good reason for it. I agree with Lindsey and Kelli that if someone is refusing to have their blood alcohol content tested, and then they must be guilty. It is also necessary to take caution so that people will not drive drunk and people that do drink and drive will be forced to take legal and full responsibility for their actions. People who drink and drive are just selfish and don’t care about the safety of their selves and most importantly others.
As similar as to what everyone else has said, the fourth amendment is something that must always be upheld. The fourth amendment was one of the first things written because of the British oppression. But in the case of drunk driving, I believe it is a matter of time and place. When the safety and security of the masses are in jeopardy, the fourth amendment should have exceptions. A breathalyzer is a very noninvasive procedure that should not be a problem to the people who have no reason to be worried. I support the courts decision that a warrant should not be needed in order to give a breathalyzer.
I believe that if there is an accident that is presumed to be caused by a drunk driver there should be no warrant needed to test a persons alcohol level. If the accident has caused significant damage to vehicles and has injured other drivers it is important that those injured receive justice. The drunk driver that caused that accident should be charged with everything they are responsible for and it is important to know if the driver was under the influence and should be punished for breaking that law. I agree with the rule that North Dakota has that even if you refuse to be tested you should be charged equally to if you did and are positive for being under the influence. I support the courts decisions that a warrant is not needed to permit a DUI test.
ReplyDeleteI found this article particularly interesting especially after just covering the judiciary branch in class. The fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. In the case of drunk driving, I think this should not be classified as against the 4th amendment. Although driving is a right most people should have access to, it is also still a privilege for people who take driving as a serious responsibility. If a person decides to drink and drive then they are a danger to themselves and other drivers. If they are suspected of being drunk the cop should be able to breathalyze them to protect the safety of other people. The only reason a person would want to refuse the breathalyzer is if they are guilty and know they will blow a number. I think it should be law that the person blow and if not then they still get charged the same way someone who blew would be.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think this was an interesting article to read, especially since we have just covered information about the supreme court and how they often take cases involving controversial constitutional ideals. I absolutely believe that cops have the right to search if there is probable cause. I agree with Lindsey on the idea that if someone is refusing to have their blood alcohol content tested, then they must be guilty. If you were sober you would have no problem proving your innocence. In fact, I would think you would choose to prove your innocence over taking a ride down to the station and being put in a jail cell. I believe cops have the right to be overly cautious when dealing with possible drunk driving scenarios because it is a crime that no only endangers the driver, but could also endanger hundreds of other people on the road.
ReplyDeleteThe fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant or probable cause. If a person is in an accident I believe this is probable cause to test the person’s alcohol level, especially since drunk driving has presently become a much bigger issue. I agree with Kelli and Lindsay when they say that an innocence person would consent to the tests, so if someone refuses the test they are most likely guilty. Automobile accidents are one of the leading causes of death for young people in the United States. It is necessary to take precautions so that people will not drive drunk and people that do drunk drive will be forced to take responsibility for their actions.
ReplyDeleteIf there is an accident that is thought to be caused by drunk driving there shouldn't have to be a warrant to test their alcohol level. Drunk driving is the cause of many accidents, especially for young people. If there is anything that can be done to reduce that, then it should be done. Like a few of the other people said above, if a person is okay with taking the alcohol level test they are probably innocent and if they don’t agree to do it then the might not be innocent. The person that was drunk driving should take responsibility for what they have done.
ReplyDeletePolice have no right to search your personal items without a warrant and probable cause. If there is an accident whether it be minor or major, I view that as a probable cause to get a warrant to search a personal car. I believe that if a driver gets pulled over and/or gets in an accident and they are asked to breathalyze and they decline, I also think that is a probable cause for a search warrant. I think it proves them guilty. Drunk driving is one of the most selfish things one person can do in their lifetime. It endangers the person driving and those surrounded by them. I support the courts decisions because I am 150% against drunk driving. People must know that their actions are wrong and they must be punished for their bad decisions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kristen. In no way is testing a person's alcohol level when they caused an accident unreasonable, especially if they were swerving beforehand or if the police believe that he in under the influence. Causing an accident is probable cause. If a person asks the officer to get a warrant, the cop will most likely arrest him or her on suspicion of drunk driving, take them to the station, and draw their blood their. However, if a person has below the legal limit of alcohol then they should have no problem agreeing to take a blood test. Driving under the influence is illegal and one of the leading causes of death, especially for young adults. If someone is driving under the influence and does cause an accident, then they should take responsibility for their actions and not try to find a legal loophole.
ReplyDeletei agree that police have the right to test for alcohol in a drivers system. If they are causing a problem on the road i.e. swerving, speeding, etc, then then a police is completely justified to pull them over. If when they speak to the driver and he/she appears to be under the influence then a warrant should not be required for testing the alcohol level. Like Kelly said, a person should have no problem proving their innocence, and if they refuse to be tested there clearly must be something they are hiding. All of the statements above present valid opinions and i agree mostly with Kelli and Lindsey.
ReplyDeleteI understand both sides of this situation. People in general have the right to remain silent when being under arrest, and also, allowed to refuse a DUI test. If they refuse, they are taken to the hospital, and there is where they have their blood tested and be told their alcohol content in their blood. Obviously, I would say in probably 99% of cases, with no actual statistics behind it, that people refuse to take the test because they are guilty, not that it is an invasion of privacy or is breaking the Fourth Amendment. If the person's actions are hurting or could hurt other people, then that is one of the reasons that a warrant is valid to have.
ReplyDeleteI agree that police shouldn’t need a warrant to test someone’s alcohol level if they are suspected of drunk driving. Drunk driving is a big issue today because it can cause significant damage to both the driver and any other driver or pedestrian he or she comes into contact with. Because of this, police should be completely justified in testing for a driver’s alcohol level if he or she seems to be under the influence. As most of the others commented, if someone refuses the tests, then they have most likely been drinking and don’t want to get caught. Because drunk driving is one of the leading causes of death, something has to be done about it, so police should absolutely have the power to test someone without a warrant. If the person is innocent then the ordeal is simply an inconvenience, but if the person is guilty then someone will have been stopped from being an enormous danger on the road.
ReplyDeleteI think that within reason and with probable cause that police should be able to do a breathalizer test on a driver. Drunk driving is nothing to take lightly and needs to be taken seriously. It is all to often that drunk drivers take the lives of innocent people yet the drunk lives to see another day. Although some might think it breaks the Fourth Amendment, I think that drunk driving is a case it should exculd. I do think you should be able to deny a breathalizer test but if you decide to take this path that the person should be treated as if they blew numbers over the legal limit.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe in warrants and the process with which our country operates. The right to protection and personal property is among the most important, however, I believe that if there is an accident that is presumed to be caused by a drunk driver there should be no warrant needed to test a persons alcohol level. If the accident has caused significant damage to vehicles and has injured other drivers it is important that those injured receive justice. The drunk driver that caused that accident should be charged with everything they are responsible for and it is important to know if the driver was under the influence and should be punished for breaking that law. I agree with the rule that North Dakota has that even if you refuse to be tested you should be charged equally to if you did and are positive for being under the influence. I support the courts decisions that a warrant is not needed to permit a DUI test.
ReplyDeleteThe Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". I agree with this amendment, however, I believe that it is completely within reason to perform a breathalyzer test without a warrant. Drunk driving is an issue that should not be taken lightly. When an individual is driving under the influence, he or she puts the lives of the people in every car that he or she passes on the road in jeopardy. Breathalyzer tests are also fairly simple and are largely noninvasive, so taking the test should not be an issue to many people.
ReplyDeleteI found this interesting to read because we learned a lot about the fourth amendment and went into depth with it. I also believe that cops have the right to search if there is good reason for it. I agree with Lindsey and Kelli that if someone is refusing to have their blood alcohol content tested, and then they must be guilty. It is also necessary to take caution so that people will not drive drunk and people that do drink and drive will be forced to take legal and full responsibility for their actions. People who drink and drive are just selfish and don’t care about the safety of their selves and most importantly others.
ReplyDeleteAs similar as to what everyone else has said, the fourth amendment is something that must always be upheld. The fourth amendment was one of the first things written because of the British oppression. But in the case of drunk driving, I believe it is a matter of time and place. When the safety and security of the masses are in jeopardy, the fourth amendment should have exceptions. A breathalyzer is a very noninvasive procedure that should not be a problem to the people who have no reason to be worried. I support the courts decision that a warrant should not be needed in order to give a breathalyzer.
ReplyDelete